|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 2:16AM
#21
|
|
|
As someone who has never used magic online, I thought I'd chuck in my 1.5 cents on what I would look for to make me start. My paper magic buddies say good things about drafting online, but I've been hesitant to dilute my time and cash between paper and online. So here's a no-particular-order list of the sort of thing I would look for to reason it whorthwhile starting now:
1) Deck Building
I understand the economics of this are that you can't play with cards you don't yet own (just like in paper), but can you at least deck build with cards you don't own and test shuffle?
2) Redemption
I gather that you can redeem whole sets once collected, but that in doing so you remove the set from your online collection. This feels a bit like CDs and mp3 files - the record labels want you to buy twice! I presume it must be possible to ensure that you could redeem a card once, at which point it becomes a nontradable, nonredeemable but PLAYABLE card in your online collection. I don't think this would canabalise sales - if anything, I would say that it might keep people interested in supporting both online and paper magic.
Second thing, I can understand why the redemption applies only to whole sets but in reality you want playsets of the lower rarities. Is it not possible for Wizards to redeem whole sets of commons and/or uncommons separately from the rares / mythics?
3) Trading
This may already be a feature, but can I offer card X to be tradable for card Y and then leave it up to happen automatically?
I hear that trade values online are slightly different to paper magic, but there seems to be a fairly universal adoption of those values. Is that correct?
4) Choosing a draft
It always irritates me when I see on public posted drafts that a pro has duffed up a rank amateur. I am neither a pro nor a newbie. My favourite games in paper are competing against people my own level or slightly better. Is it possible to set the parameters of the draft queuing to opt to play against people with similar track records to yourself? I understand that pros like to draft a set a few hundred times to get the feel of it. I get to draft maybe twice a month. I'm a pretty good player most of the time (ahem!), but let's not kid ourselves that practice practice practice isn't the single biggest factor. Nor would I enjoy beating someone for whom this is the first time ever at a draft. I suppose it depends on how big a player pool there is, but those options would appeal, especially if I want to dip in and out.
If not, can we at least see some meaningful stats to our opponents (number of drafts played of this set, number of drafts played total, win ratio for each).
5) iPad version
If ever there was a swing vote to joining the online throng, it would be this.
Apologies if these are points which are long-since settled.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 2:17AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Dec 19, 2011
|
This is very interesting, I have been curious about the "new" Magic Online for a while. I have been playing for a year and a half and have all this time been very frustrated with the current client.
Every time I want to play a game, I receive a message that the deck is too small, so I have to go into deck editor, load the deck, and hit Save before playing. With each and every deck, every time. This is one sure way to make me less motivated to launch the game.
Very often, when I have built a new deck, and I want to play a game, it doesn't appear in the list of decks to choose from until I have gone back and saved it one more time. The whole menu list thing is clunky and little user-friendly.
It looks like these very irritating elements may become a thing of the past, and that is good. From the screenshots it looks like the game will be looking better as well.
I like most of the ideas presented in the article and hope that it will be playable (judging from the many negative comments in this thread I am worried).
One wish that doesn't seem to come true for me is that I would have liked the cards to look more like their dead tree counterparts with regards to fonts.
Question: Is it possible (either in the current client or the coming one) to "show" someone else your collection (as in, for getting help to build a good deck out of the pool of cards you own)?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 2:17AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Dec 25, 2009
|
One very quick question - what resolution were the example screenshots taken at? I'm still in the dark ages here having only 1280x1024 and whilst that is more than enough for most of the work I do (and games I play), this is one of the rare cases where it might not be anywhere near enough.
1280x720 is doable. The screenshots are probably 1680x1050 or lower. The game scales so it looks good on smaller screens.
Edit:
I like most of the ideas presented in the article and hope that it will be playable (judging from the many negative comments in this thread I am worried).
Don't be afraid of the negative comments here. The beta client is not perfect but it's also not all downhill! The truth is someone in the middle. Do know that it's still a beta meaning things will get fixed and redone. It's not a finished product. I think the sneap peek is a good idea because it gives people the option to try out the beta and give feedback. I'm preaty sure that if the majority of players really dislike a change (and give feedback about it) it will get changed back.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 4:26AM
#24
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2011
|
The beta client HAS improved a lot over the last couple months, no question about that. My biggest hope for it right now is that they end up making the foils look as nice as they do in the current client. I'm hoping the reason there are no foils in the screenshots posted is that they know there's still work to be done there.
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:17AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jul 12, 2012
|
Any support for OSX/Linux yet? Is the new client still written in .NET or will it have a chance to run via Wine?
Would really love to be able to fire up MODO without keeping a Windows VM around.
~Jeff
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:22AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 25, 2012
|
Any support for OSX/Linux yet? Is the new client still written in .NET or will it have a chance to run via Wine?
Would really love to be able to fire up MODO without keeping a Windows VM around.
~Jeff
It is WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation)...so... 
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:35AM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Aug 24, 2011
|
And what about the Leagues?
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:36AM
#28
|
- Jawsome UnCon Prizewinner
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
|
Personally, I was hoping that when Duels was released for the iPad, it might mean that Wizards was finally throwing Apple users a bone and, just maybe, an iPad version of Magic Online would be coming soon. But the article doesn't seem to bear that out at all, so while a lot of the changes talked about seem to be positive steps, it doesn't look like I'll be able to participate in the community any time soon.
With Apple computers using Intel chips for the past few years now, it does seem like about time a Mac or iPad client became a reality.
The new client utilizes Windows Presentation Foundation, which requires .NET. This means that an Apple version of this new client is not currently feasible.
That's unfortunate - I hadn't been following the progress of the new GUI very closely, and was hoping it would be a pure web client.
I haven't logged into MTGO in a while, and unfortunately the limited beta coincides with a planned trip for me. But maybe I'll try it out during the wide beta later this year.
I do think it looks nicer, but I seem to recall that a lot of my frustrations with the v3 client only became apparent after using it for a while, as well as trying to host player run events within it. So I'd have to try it out to really get a feel for whether it's better.
Features that I like:
- trade binders
- decklists saved server-side
- 5 minute client download
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:36AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
I got an invite to the beta not long ago and trying to navigate it gave me a headache.
To the point where I removed both Magic Online clients (beta and V3). No point in spending money on cards in v3 if the new client is going to be this bad, since I won't want to play once it's forced on everyone anyways.
DCI Certified Level 2 Judge
|
|
|
|
11 months ago ::
Jul 12, 2012 - 5:47AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Nov 18, 2004
|
Something not explicitly shown in the article was what multiplayer looks like. I wonder if this is intentional? Right now, multiplayer frames look extremely cramped. While stacking of tokens helps in some formats (especially Rhys in EDH/Commander), the thing still needs to be shown how much room we have for multiplayer, what 2HG looks like, how life-totals are handled in 2HG, team loss versus individual loss, and so on.
"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)
|
|
|
