Quality of life improvements

andrewvanmarle

Some things that i'd love to see in upcoming updates:
1. Being able to speed up the victory/ribbons animation. (holding like with opening boosters would be an idea) 


2. Being able to edit an event deck even when your nodes run out in an event (so we can fine tune immediatly and not wait 6 hours and hope to remember only for pve, if this makes it possible to troll pve

3. Being able to see the node timer even when you still have charges
4. Being able to see your coalition members scores from the event instead of the coalition menu
5. Having the coalition event scores ordered, highest scoring member first
6.leave the score tables of an event for a day after the event ends so coalitions don't have to calculate from the total score
7. repopulate the vault (with card sets, jewels etc)
8. Get rid of the annoying "how do you like mtgpq" message after every three or so fights.  once a player does not want to rate, he really doesnt want to.

9.Have the color mastery bars in platinum reflect the maximum possible mastery (instead of just being full) 

Small stuff like that would me and maybe a lot of others quite happy

QuiksilverHg

Agree with all of these. Easy things that would make everything just a little better.

Wouldn’t be revolutionary, but would show that Oktagon is trying.

shteev

Reducing the number of game actions necessary to cycle a card. 2 small alterations which would have a vast knock on effect on quality of life in this regard would be

1. Do not close the player's hand display after cycling a card, and
2. Take mana from the cycled card first, so that the card to be cycled need not be dragged to the top of your hand.

andrewvanmarle said:

Some things that i'd love to see in upcoming updates:
1. Being able to speed up the victory/ribbons animation. (holding like with opening boosters would be an idea)

Any in game animation which currently requires the screen to be tapped to speed it up (such as drawing a card) could also benefit from this improvement.

Ohboy

(2) is not just a qol issue. It changes game play. 

shteev

Ohboy said:

(2) is not just a qol issue. It changes game play. 

Does it?

[edit] Yeah, I guess you're not wrong, what with decks being stored server side. Sigh. Chalk that up to another problem of not having them stored client side.

Krishna

6. Being able to see both players graveyard and exile

shteev

Krishna said:

6. Being able to see both players graveyard and exile

I'd agree with this one, but it's not a small change to the UI.

UweTellkampf

I really like all of these, and yes, the second one would be a bit sketchy, since it would mean that one could play a match with a deck chasing the objectives, and afterwards change that deck to something generally more annoying. 

andrewvanmarle

UweTellkampf said:

I really like all of these, and yes, the second one would be a bit sketchy, since it would mean that one could play a match with a deck chasing the objectives, and afterwards change that deck to something generally more annoying. 

Hmmmm
Yeah, youve got a point there. Let's strike that one from the list

Szamsziel

Just allow to see deck and copy it into standard slot. 

ElfNeedsFood

Or allow local edit and online upload only when the charge is consumed. 

bk1234

Or just allow it for PVE. 

Kinesia

I've commented on this in the Suggestions thread version. For 2) I agree, just let you look and copy, not edit. But I've frequently wanted this when testing things against Bolas etc, also a pain that I can't look at decks on nodes I'm not currently at.

Ohboy

shteev said:

Ohboy said:

(2) is not just a qol issue. It changes game play. 

Does it?

[edit] Yeah, I guess you're not wrong, what with decks being stored server side. Sigh. Chalk that up to another problem of not having them stored client side.

Sorry I see why it's confusing. I was talking about your 2nd suggestion.

Being unable to choose which card to drain mana from is a nerf to cycling. We don't need to argue about cycling being overpowered, but it IS a change to balance and gameplay and not a simple QOL improvement.

Also, decks should always be stored server side. This was something they did right. I believe they actually did store them client side for a very short while as per your suggestion before people realised that reinstalling the game or playing across multiple devices meant that the decks didn't get carried over.

DaddyO

I’m trying to craft a deck featuring Hour of Eternity. This card is dependent on having creatures in the graveyard and basically the graveyard is a dysfunctional mysterious mess. I’m looking for cards that will fill my graveyard to unlock the power of this mythic card. Strangely many supposedly powerful HOU cards rely on graveyard cards but there is no way to evaluate the state of the graveyard. Uncage the Menagerie fetches 6 creatures but apparently the ones that don’t go into your hand just disappear because it isn’t filling my graveyard. That seems to be a design flaw since the card says to fetch 6 creatures and they must go somewhere. I suppose Menagerie cards are discarded to the exile pile but I have no easy way to determine that outcome. The game has numerous cards that manipulate the exile zone and the graveyard. We can all agree that it is game design malpractice to not provide the ability to view those zones.  The battle log can easily be expanded to allow for viewing both the graveyard and exile pile. Let’s make this a priority. Please. 

blacklotus

@DaddyO uncage the menagerie fetches up to 6 critters into your hand. It does not fetch 6 and discard/exile the excess that cannot fit in your available empty card slots. There is no excess critter cards to be discarded/exile. 

DaddyO

blacklotus said:

@DaddyO uncage the menagerie fetches up to 6 critters into your hand. It does not fetch 6 and discard/exile the excess that cannot fit in your available empty card slots. There is no excess critter cards to be discarded/exile. 

The words “up to” do not appear on the card. I agree that the card does seem to function in that way but this is an error based on the wording on my card. 

Ohboy

I think it's a rite of passage for every paper mtg player to finally realise they're not playing mtg. They're playing puzzle quest with a mtg theme.

This game does not overdraw. There's no discard phase.

shteev

Ohboy said:

shteev said:

Ohboy said:

(2) is not just a qol issue. It changes game play. 

Does it?

[edit] Yeah, I guess you're not wrong, what with decks being stored server side. Sigh. Chalk that up to another problem of not having them stored client side.

Sorry I see why it's confusing. I was talking about your 2nd suggestion.

Being unable to choose which card to drain mana from is a nerf to cycling. We don't need to argue about cycling being overpowered, but it IS a change to balance and gameplay and not a simple QOL improvement.

Wait, no. Absolutely not. You're not going to be able to keep the mana in the card being cycled anyway... and all the other cards in your hand can be ordered. So by ordering your hand, currently your 2 choices are:

1. Lose all the mana in your cycled card and the choose exactly where mana will be drawn from in your other cards, or
2. Drain mana from the cycled card first, and then drain mana from your other cards in the order you choose.

This is a non-choice. Option 1 is strictly better than option 2. The only reason anyone would pick option 2 is because they don't KNOW about option 1. There's no skill in learning this rule about the game. This is not a change is your play options, it's a change in busywork.

Consider the changes that WOTC made to putting 'damage on the stack' during creature combat. In the early days of Magic, if I blocked your creature with a Mogg Fanatic, I'd have a choice to make... would I let my Mogg Fanatic deal combat damage, or would I block with it, sacrifice it to deal combat damage to another creature, and thus deal no damage to your attacker?

Later on, when 6th edition was introduced, the rules were changed and the effect on combat was that you could do both. A lot of players liked this change, of course, because it made their Mogg Fanatic more powerful, but the choice aspect was taken away, and instead, experienced players who knew how the rules worked gained an advantage over unexperienced players who didn't... at least, until the first time it happened to them at a pre-release or FNM, and made them lose a match, and then from that point on they knew about it.

WOTC changed the combat rules again in 2010 specifically to remove this non-choice.

Ohboy said:

Also, decks should always be stored server side. This was something they did right. I believe they actually did store them client side for a very short while as per your suggestion before people realised that reinstalling the game or playing across multiple devices meant that the decks didn't get carried over.

Not being able to carry over saved games after reinstalling? Did that really happen in MTGPQ? If so, it's just another example of Hibernum's incompetence. Hands up anyone who thinks THAT problem wasn't solved in 1983.

[edit] 'Decks should always be stored server side' sounds a lot to me like 'local saves are always the wrong choice for computer games', so I'm assuming you can't mean that in the way I'm interpreting.

James13

Decks always being server side is more of an anti-cheating measure than anything else.  And a good one.

Ohboy

shteev said:

Ohboy said:

shteev said:

Ohboy said:

(2) is not just a qol issue. It changes game play. 

Does it?

[edit] Yeah, I guess you're not wrong, what with decks being stored server side. Sigh. Chalk that up to another problem of not having them stored client side.

Sorry I see why it's confusing. I was talking about your 2nd suggestion.

Being unable to choose which card to drain mana from is a nerf to cycling. We don't need to argue about cycling being overpowered, but it IS a change to balance and gameplay and not a simple QOL improvement.

Wait, no. Absolutely not. You're not going to be able to keep the mana in the card being cycled anyway... and all the other cards in your hand can be ordered. So by ordering your hand, currently your 2 choices are:

1. Lose all the mana in your cycled card and the choose exactly where mana will be drawn from in your other cards, or
2. Drain mana from the cycled card first, and then drain mana from your other cards in the order you choose.

This is a non-choice. Option 1 is strictly better than option 2. The only reason anyone would pick option 2 is because they don't KNOW about option 1. There's no skill in learning this rule about the game. This is not a change is your play options, it's a change in busywork.

Consider the changes that WOTC made to putting 'damage on the stack' during creature combat. In the early days of Magic, if I blocked your creature with a Mogg Fanatic, I'd have a choice to make... would I let my Mogg Fanatic deal combat damage, or would I block with it, sacrifice it to deal combat damage to another creature, and thus deal no damage to your attacker?

Later on, when 6th edition was introduced, the rules were changed and the effect on combat was that you could do both. A lot of players liked this change, of course, because it made their Mogg Fanatic more powerful, but the choice aspect was taken away, and instead, experienced players who knew how the rules worked gained an advantage over unexperienced players who didn't... at least, until the first time it happened to them at a pre-release or FNM, and made them lose a match, and then from that point on they knew about it.

WOTC changed the combat rules again in 2010 specifically to remove this non-choice.

Ohboy said:

Also, decks should always be stored server side. This was something they did right. I believe they actually did store them client side for a very short while as per your suggestion before people realised that reinstalling the game or playing across multiple devices meant that the decks didn't get carried over.

Not being able to carry over saved games after reinstalling? Did that really happen in MTGPQ? If so, it's just another example of Hibernum's incompetence. Hands up anyone who thinks THAT problem wasn't solved in 1983.

[edit] 'Decks should always be stored server side' sounds a lot to me like 'local saves are always the wrong choice for computer games', so I'm assuming you can't mean that in the way I'm interpreting.

Ok I misread your post about the cycling. I agree with your conclusions there upon your elaboration

That dmg on stack and sac creature was a stupid mechanic and I always wondered why it took so long for them to fix.

Local saves are always the wrong choice for online only multi-player games. There, I said it. It's an unnecessary risk in a connected world. The less done locally the better.(cost vs risk I know)   I didn't know this was controversial. Why is it controversial?