|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 10:29AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2004
|
It all comes back to making the client completely customizable. There are so many game clients out there that have the ability to undock, resize, and remember those changes from log in to next that it's beyond rediculous that this isn't standard for MTGO. I mean, why tick off any of your customers when you don't have to?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 3:58PM
#22
|
|
|
The screenshot in the first post is showing the battlefield during the declare blockers step, where the cards are deliberately shrunk down to give a better view of which creature is blocking which. With only a few lands and a couple creatures on the board, this admittedly does show a lot of blank board space. I couldn't replicate the shot exactly, but here are a few other screenshots with the same window adjustments to give more perspective (usernames blurred to protect the innocent): Normal, pre-combat shot of battlefield: Declare attackers step with typical "Red Zone" active. My first 2 creatures are attacking: The new "Blockers Row" during the declare blockers step: The "Blocker's Row" was implemented with the Wide Beta update on 1/30. Like the typical Red Zone, it's a red area that slides open between the players, however it's shifted more toward the attacking player and all other cards on the battlefield are scaled to a smaller size (ideally I would've gotten a shot where not all my opponent's creatures were blocking, so you could see how non-blockers stay in the area between blockers and lands). This is pretty much as small as cards can possibly get in the MTGO Wide Beta unless you have so many permanents on the board that it creates an extra row of them. Since it's one of the newest features added to the client (along with some additions to the Trade scene), the team is really looking for as much feedback on the Blocker's Row as possible. So whether you love it or hate it please tell us either through the Feedback Form or the Wide Beta thread: Finding & Playing Games. Feel free to be thorough, and please take time to experience it in person before you give feedback.
Sean Gibbons Community Coordinator Magic Online & Duels of the Planeswalkers Twitter: @SeanGibbons Official MTGO Twitter: @MagicOnline
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 4:26PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Nov 29, 2007
|
started seriously considering the hand as a detachable window, which you can then dock wherever you choose, like game chat. My current choice would be vertical, on the right.
What about a 'Doom' weapon style fist with 7 fanned cards in it? LIke BFG but even more deadly.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 4:40PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Dec 23, 2012
|
Dear Sean,
Thank you for your detailed post.
Feedback on new Blockers Row
We in the United Arab Emirates would like to express in strong terms that the version BEFORE the 30 Jan update was superior in this respect.
Frankly, when the Arab community here experienced the new "Blockers Row" during the 'declare blockers' step for the first time, we thought it was an unintended glitch causing jerkiness.
Whilst we understand the reasons for the change, we find it visually irritating for the red zone to move closer to the attacking player and to shrink the cards in such an extreme way.
A Better Solution
If you wish to create the clarity you seek concerning blockers, then may we suggest a more elegant solution is for the attackers to have a new red border and blockers have a new green border. By the way, this was one of the few positive features of V3, which had red text appear over attackers stating "Attacking". A red/green border would be a neater way of expressing this than the ugly "Attacking" red text which is in V3. This red border solution will kill two birds with one stone, because another feature that we don't like in BETA is that when one selects one's attackers, the creatures just move a tiny bit forward to the red zone. This feels anemic, and sometimes before committing to an attack you even wonder "Have you declared attacks properly?" because the differencce between the creatures attacking and those not attacking is very small (until it becomes too late when they tap).
It is these types of changes which we suggest you should be aiming for in BETA - namely to keep the good functionality of V3, but improving the visuals and feel, so that we have the best of both worlds in BETA. This harps back to all the previous comments about the need to improve V3 without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
A Plea from the Heart
This is a heartfelt plea to please don't tamper with our cards in this fashion. Blockers are clear without the need to shrink.
I hope you find our comments to be sensible and reasonable.
Thank you.
EDIT: To clarify, I don't support the way V3 has arrows in Declare Blockers. I only like that v3 has the word "Attacking" on attacking creatures. This could be more elegantly achieved by a red border on the attackers.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 04, 2013 - 7:05PM
#25
|
|
|
Thanks for posting those battlefield shots. It seems clear to me that the blockers row idea can not work. The battlefield space is already vertically challenged and to try and squeeze an extra row into this just exacerbates the problem. I will be sure to post on the Finding & Playing Games thread about this. I took the liberty of modifiying one of the images in an attempt to illustrate a point. The stack effect looked like a full size card or a zoom, and I wondered if by moving things around (vertical phase bar, hand in a window docked right like chat, operating system task bar hidden) it would be possible to get 4 rows full size on the screen. Sadly it isn't, but you would not have to scale the card much once you have reclaimed some vertical space. Anyway, here's the modified image : 
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 7:36AM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2003
|
Considering that all of this feedback is focusing on the 1v1 screen, I wonder, how are ppl feeling about multiplayer so far?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 7:02PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
My heart just sinks, you know. After all this time and STILL.
God bless your optimistic soul. I can't possibly say such things about the state of this program's development.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 05, 2013 - 11:54PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2003
|
God bless your optimistic soul. I can't possibly say such things about the state of this program's development.
So would it be safe to say you are impressed by the quality they are starting to deliver, after, say, 5 years?
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 06, 2013 - 5:11PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jun 28, 2006
|
God bless your optimistic soul. I can't possibly say such things about the state of this program's development.
So would it be safe to say you are impressed by the quality they are starting to deliver, after, say, 5 years?
Not safe at all.
I have no such patience to see a program with the look of MS-QDOS updated to that of MS Windows 3.1, figuratively/functionally speaking.
The transition from v2.5-v3 was bad enough. I fear the next iteration will be more painful.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 07, 2013 - 3:03AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Dec 23, 2012
|
Dear Rukcas,
Will you at least be willing to acknowledge that the BETA is already better than v3 in terms of the in-duel experience?
|
|
|
