We NEED Standardized Language

Options
2»

Comments

  • Azerack
    Azerack Posts: 501 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Consistency in coding, let alone language, is always a good, nay, excellent, thing to have in any game. Even if the current dev team does not all have English as a first language, if they play this game, let alone the "paper" version, they should understand these issues.

    This is a legacy - pardon the term - issue and should have been something the Oktagon team would be happy to have done but methinks they rushed into developing the next expansion set instead and haven't "looked back".
  • stikxs
    stikxs Posts: 518 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Also, what is the deal with "non-colorless"? Why not just use "colored"?
  • Mburn7
    Mburn7 Posts: 3,427 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    stikxs said:
    Also, what is the deal with "non-colorless"? Why not just use "colored"?
    That's racist :D:D
  • Kinesia
    Kinesia Posts: 1,621 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Azerack said:
    Consistency in coding, let alone language, is always a good, nay, excellent, thing to have in any game. Even if the current dev team does not all have English as a first language, if they play this game, let alone the "paper" version, they should understand these issues.

    This is a legacy - pardon the term - issue and should have been something the Oktagon team would be happy to have done but methinks they rushed into developing the next expansion set instead and haven't "looked back".

    If they start making the wording and implementation 100% accurate in their first language it will still start the work towards fixing other languages in a big way.

    And many of these things will STAY in future sets, so they can be listed and marked to be looked at along the way in the process of doing a new set.
    (Just like implementing the graveyard was done side by side with doing Ravnica)

    If you make sure the new set and events have all these wordings accurate it will set up the code to more easily correct the older ones.

  • Mburn7
    Mburn7 Posts: 3,427 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    @Brigby are we going to get any sort of official response to this?  This is a major issue that clearly (based on the number of posts here in a fairly short amount of time) has a lot of community support for a fix.
  • __Adam
    __Adam Posts: 111 Tile Toppler
    Options
    Its yet another indicator of low quality code. 

    Card text shouldn't be some random string that someone types into a box. Actual game effects, and their descriptions, should be normalized in code and the card descriptions templated in from there. That way verbiage, and behavior, are consistent and propagate through the entire game.

    If there are any devs here, something like cucumber.
  • Azerack
    Azerack Posts: 501 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Kinesia said:
    Azerack said:
    Consistency in coding, let alone language, is always a good, nay, excellent, thing to have in any game. Even if the current dev team does not all have English as a first language, if they play this game, let alone the "paper" version, they should understand these issues.

    This is a legacy - pardon the term - issue and should have been something the Oktagon team would be happy to have done but methinks they rushed into developing the next expansion set instead and haven't "looked back".

    If they start making the wording and implementation 100% accurate in their first language it will still start the work towards fixing other languages in a big way.

    And many of these things will STAY in future sets, so they can be listed and marked to be looked at along the way in the process of doing a new set.
    (Just like implementing the graveyard was done side by side with doing Ravnica)

    If you make sure the new set and events have all these wordings accurate it will set up the code to more easily correct the older ones.

    Just so I know you read my post correctly , I'm not stating anything against any language . I was more saying regardless of language,  if Oktagon people play the game, they should understand the need for a standard set of terms. How they want to start that work or in what language is superfluous as long as they just start... 
  • Brigby
    Brigby ADMINISTRATORS Posts: 7,757 Site Admin
    Options
    @Azerack @Kinesia does have a point though. Anything changed in one language will have to be changed in every other language too, which is no small feat.

    Going back to your comment though, my guess is that any sort of standardization procedure would be an ongoing/long-term project, considering how many cards there are and how many there will be as more sets get added. (Although I'm sure Cast vs Summon would be something they'd focus on first, since we've passed information about that interaction to them before)
  • Azerack
    Azerack Posts: 501 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Brigby said:
    @Azerack @Kinesia does have a point though. Anything changed in one language will have to be changed in every other language too, which is no small feat.

    @Brigby - My point wasn't on what language they start with, it was that regardless of what language they use, like speaking language, if they play MtG then they should understand the problems we're facing in MtGPQ....

    Apparently MY language is not being understood in this thread, however, so I'll stop, here...  :neutral:
  • Laeuftbeidir
    Laeuftbeidir Posts: 1,841 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    Brigby said:
    @Azerack @Kinesia does have a point though. Anything changed in one language will have to be changed in every other language too, which is no small feat.

    Going back to your comment though, my guess is that any sort of standardization procedure would be an ongoing/long-term project, considering how many cards there are and how many there will be as more sets get added. (Although I'm sure Cast vs Summon would be something they'd focus on first, since we've passed information about that interaction to them before)
    It's not like this topic wasn't promoted regularly with exactly this argument why it should be done earlier, not later.. The workload rises a lot.

    In a lot of situations, missing rules haven't been too much of a problem as long as the behavior fit the expectations.
    "
    Fixed an issue where copied cards were valid to be cast on the turn they were copied, instead of invalid, when copying a card into the player's hand that can be cast the turn it was copied, now the copied cards are invalid until the turn after they were copied."

    This is 100% counterintuitive and is nowhere stated as regular behavior. That'll add some workload to the support with bug retorts incoming.. Would it be possible to use the same mechanic like you do on support token explanations and evergreens (Klick to get the text) for the weird copy rules?

  • Mburn7
    Mburn7 Posts: 3,427 Chairperson of the Boards
    Options
    New entry for the list:

    When are copies ok to be cast right away, and when are they not?  While I personally dislike the new rule I do (kind of) understand the point.  What I don't get is why it doesn't apply in every situation.

    Also @Brigby its been less than a week and there is already mass confusion over whether or not cards that copy stuff are bugged, since almost nobody is aware of the new rule change.  It should probably be highlighted somewhere instead of buried at the end of a very long changelog.
  • ElfNeedsFood
    ElfNeedsFood Posts: 944 Critical Contributor
    Options
    Do we have a list anywhere of the cards where language was fixed per the 3.1 release notes?  They didn’t normalize cast vs create for tokens. 

Categories