|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 9:13AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2003
|
The use of "serialization" that Gordon is using in his post is the attribute of possessing a serial number. In the current database each item contains a unique serial number. In the new database each item will not have that number but rather a count value for how many copies of that element is owned by the particular user. So the new database has a max size of # of users * # of elements.
Is that the wrong definition of "serialization" in regards to database design? If this was a internal requirements statement generated for the DB people, sure. For a public document to describe what's going on, nope.
4. Don't speak dumb, or you'll be struck dumb.
Remember, the name of the game is heads I win, tails you lose.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 9:30AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Dec 22, 2009
|
Well why don't they just say "we've decided punch cards are not waterproof, so we'll be moving to papertape soon. Screen resolution will probably increase a lot". Just as meaningless really. The story given in no way explains how they're expecting to gain efficiency, because it 1) uses the wrong words or 2) describes the wrong actions for the intended effect.
Wait, you actually expected wotc to use the correct words to describe the correct things? Come on you should know better than that now.
How many times have they actually gotten an event release article right?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 11:37AM
#33
|
|
|
Thanks Gordon for the update. Could we get a monthly update next year instead of quarterly? Even a quick note or a WIP screen shot, or even your thoughts on a particular design feature you guys are working on.
Sure it kicks off some complaining, but there is that anyways. The mtg daily manages to wip out 2-3 articles per day.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:19PM
#34
|
|
|
I agree with Hossicle. A monthly update would be a very good thing.
You see the thing is I forgot entierly that there was work being done on a new client. I was growing, as always, increasingly frustraited with the current state of MTGO. Now that I know there is at least something of a reason for the neglect I am at least hopeful that things will get better.
Keeping the community informed keeps the community involved. Involved customers spend more money.
Some days I wake up feeling like MTGO is cutting features, cutting prize support, and is utterly neglected by both Wizards and the MTGO staff. Other days I feel like by working together we are really building a beautiful venue where we can come together and all play our favorit game, Magic, the Gathering. Guess which days I manage to make it to the store.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 12:38PM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2007
|
The use of "serialization" that Gordon is using in his post is the attribute of possessing a serial number. In the current database each item contains a unique serial number. In the new database each item will not have that number but rather a count value for how many copies of that element is owned by the particular user. So the new database has a max size of # of users * # of elements.
Is that the wrong definition of "serialization" in regards to database design? If this was a internal requirements statement generated for the DB people, sure. For a public document to describe what's going on, nope.
Thank you for unconfuseling me. I read through the thread after the initial update post and started getting more and more confused wondering where people were getting their ideas from. The initial updated sounded to me, just as you described. Unique Ids for digital objects are obsolete when considering the vastness of the digital mtg world. (I use the term 'world' to describe all the objects collectively.) So it makes sense that they will now move away from doing that and instead keep object counts (how many of a specific card you own.)
Really sometimes people overthink things (myself included) in their attempt to be analytically critical. Or perhaps since we are talking about technology where a wrong term can change things dramatically people are just seeking a little bit too much precision in their information.
Winter.Wolf
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 1:31PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Feb 15, 2005
|
IM ready for the beta part of this, so I can see if I can break it.  Should be interesting! Bring it on and let the pain begin.!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 2:19PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Mar 11, 2009
|
Three more months till the beta starts is disappointing... I was really hoping it was almost go.... What if they made everyone beta the client on the live server... But using free masques drafts! People might actually crack som masques block then 
Calavera on MTGO
I collect Zendikar Foil Basic lands. Trade me yours!
Things that I want to see changed on MTGO:
1: 64 man drafts added to rotation of Events.
2: Visual/Audible Notification of disconnect, deckbuild/afk time expiring and round starts.
3: Prize Payouts as close to draft sets as possible.
4: Rotate Classic draft queues monthly!
5: MOCS level events for Classic/Pauper
6: Power 9!
7: Award Promo Cards for Constructed PEs (esp for Legacy/Classic)
8: Program Split option back in!
9: Set Favorite version in deck editor (i.e. always use x swamp)
10: Better sorting of gold cards in deck editor.
11: Bring leagues Back!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 2:23PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2007
|
Well why don't they just say "we've decided punch cards are not waterproof, so we'll be moving to papertape soon. Screen resolution will probably increase a lot". Just as meaningless really. The story given in no way explains how they're expecting to gain efficiency, because it 1) uses the wrong words or 2) describes the wrong actions for the intended effect.
Wait, you actually expected wotc to use the correct words to describe the correct things? Come on you should know better than that now.
How many times have they actually gotten an event release article right?
I agree that this is the correct interpretation. It's a shame that the statement is written in such a confusing way. I entirely failed to understand what it through several reads until I finally realised they were talking about serial numbers.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 2:51PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jul 24, 2008
|
Leagues.
Leagues – Chris (WotC_K) will talk more about Leagues in Q1 2011
First off, thank you for mentioning leagues in the update. The mere presence of leagues in the update eliminates speculation that WOTC is ignoring them. I hope the talk is constructive and leads to some ACTION. Let me know if I can help in anyway (ie. Beta, online brainstorm session, cookies, etc).
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Dec 17, 2010 - 2:57PM
#40
|
|
|
Leagues.
. The mere presence of leagues in the update eliminates speculation that WOTC is ignoring them. I .
what makes you think so? new client will probably be live next year these days without leagues, and leagues will take at least another six months.
|
|
|
