I can login, but I can't access the store, something about a time stamp at first. It just gets a wait screen, and without a deck I can't see if I can play a game. And I can't access chat.
I have never played MTG online and I have a login so I found where I can download the helper file. I did that. I then installed magic, the only problem is it has no file extension. What program should this be running under? What can I do? It saved it as all files instead of associating it with a specific program. I have Windows XP.
I don't really like the new layout, because I just like to scroll and read everything. But if you have to keep the new format, then can you have next buttons at the end of each section?
I hate having to scroll back up to read the next section. Also, highlight what current section I am on, so I don't have to remember which section I was at.
... if they add the same buttons along the bottom and have it automatically scroll back to the top, I think this *is* an improvement. By doing it in javascript, this already has the advantage of not requiring a reload to get to the next section (which is usually my biggest complaint against paginated articles). If the buttons are along the bottom, they are in a good location to choose after reading a section, and if doing so often scrolls back to the top, you're not adding tedious user actions. And there is a functional benefit, since it makes it easier to skip sections you don't care about (and allows hammy to pack more information in if he wants without making the article seem ridiculously huge).
Hate the new layout. I'm probably not the target audience though. I always read all the article and like only having to hit the down arrow to read the entire thing. When I click on a card that doesn't open in a new tab and click back it brings me back to the intro page which is rather annoying, but I could right click or alt click and avoid that. Ultimately, I like the idea of trying something new, but personally (even when implemented better as others have suggested) the new layout will never be as good as the previous style for my own purposes.
Without a printable link on puremtgo.com the articles are tough to print out. This one is so difficult to print that I won't even bother. But that won't stop me from reading and enjoying it later, keep up the great content!
I personally like the new interface. Perhaps you can figure out a way to also put the menu tabs at the bottom too, with a reset to the top of the page so it makes it easy to start the next section as well.
The new Channel and Strip Mine arts are gorgeous; I wonder why Wizards didn't feature them in the article over some of the...less well done ones. Too bad they're not available unfoiled. I like the new article format; makes it easy to skip over some of the parts which I don't typically read but others value and improves the overall organization. Links at the bottom of each section would be a plus, though.
I'll give you 5 stars for effort with the new layout.
I'm not sure if I like it but perhaps that's just because it's new and I'm old! lol.
I'd like to see it stay for an article or two so that I can really get used to it. If anything I would suggest less headings. Having the spoiler like that is fine and also the totally descrete parts but to have, for example, the card prices and graphs in two different tabs felt like using them just for the sake of it.
If you can duplicate the tabs at the bottom then great but I guess I'm just used to reading big analysis documents on screen so I have no problem with using the 'home', 'end' navigation style buttons rather than using the mouse to scroll.
Keep the format for a week or two, or an article or two and use it where is benefits and not just because you can and I think you have a winner.
The new layout is a good idea, though I too must admit that it's not executed the best way.
It's great because you can easily skip the topics you're not interested in. It's a bit frustrating because I have to switch on JavaScript every time (I usually browse with JavaScript deactivated, because it's the safest way regarding web site exploits - and waaaay faster on many major sites). OK, I can handle that.
And for the scrolling up again: it's indeed the only thing preventing my opinion from being "all fine", because the usability is indeed quite bad. On the other hand, there's no need to "scroll up" if you're familiar with your keyboard's functions within your browser: Pressing "Home" brings you back to the top of the page!
I'm leaning against the new layout. It's cumbersome and just doesn't feel like an article bit, like some of the other guys who posted, maybe I'm just used to the traditional layout.
Also, is anyone else having problems with the new WOTC forums? I can't get it to take my personal info and even get to look at the rest of the content. IT won't take my user name and password at all.
Having not drafted M10 at all aside from the fun site (http://www.ccgdecks.com) that gives simulation drafts I don't have a lot of comments but it seems there were several points where your picks could have been stronger or better for you. But you say this as you go along. Could have picked this or this might have been better. Double fireball + soldiers does seem like a workable plan and obviously it did work for 2 matches so good job. Too bad about the replays.
It was early in the draft, and I was unsure that red was going to be anymore than a splash. At the time, I felt the twin fireballs were going to be it, and I mean that. I thought the only two red spells in my deck would be the twin fireballs.
One of the recurring ideas in any document design class is that (except for special cases) you should prioritize usability above visual appeal.
When someone reads an article, it's easiest to scroll from top to bottom once, not back and forth six times. Since there's no functional benefit to the new format, and in fact quite a hindrance to it, I'd have to encourage against it for the future. Sorry :\ I admit it does look cool though.
Due to the presence of Illusionary Servant and Ice Cage, not to mention Oakenform, and a plethora of combat stalling walls and regenerators, Blinding Mage is huge in M2010. Because of this, Blinding Mage is a whole lot better in M2010 than tappers/trappers in previous formats.
There is no way that 17 lands in a 41-card deck is correct. Especially with 5- and 6-drops, and X-spells that want maximum mana. Did you really need a 1/1 life-gaining creature for a deck of this type?
Well its an interesting idea for an article layout. Very simple javascript/css and very doable. Not sure the actual execution is great but that's the web guy in me. Im no designer but it seems to lack something. I do like the idea and perhaps a sidebar menu would make more sense. For one thing it would allow for more topics without a scroll to the right. Smaller browsers can handle down better than across.
As usual the content itself is great. Destroy all creatures...but no stops regen...sadly not a Wrath reprint. But yay for the 4cmc. I wonder how hot it will be. I guess that will depend on how hot the demand is in standard since we still have Wrath in the other formats.
I too am inclined to say even if I had the money I wouldn't buy the From the Vaults set. Individual cards sure but what use do I have for something restricted/banned in many formats? Collector's item? well maybe for some...not for me.
I did briefly take a look at the new forum and I am not thrilled with it but perhaps it will grow on me.
I wonder why Knights gained .2 this week. Did someone find another deck to break them in?
I stopped reading after Veteran Armorsmith -> Seismic Strike. This deck had the potential to become one of the most broken m10 decks I've ever seen, but you denied it because "you dont want to play red maincolor". Just sad.
@Tchoob: Actually there are very few decks where sleep is really good. I think its really good in UG, but sucks in the controllish decks and UW just doesnt need it.
Let's see. One version involves clicks and one version doesn't. I'm actually going to disagree that option A is an improvement.
I can login, but I can't access the store, something about a time stamp at first. It just gets a wait screen, and without a deck I can't see if I can play a game. And I can't access chat.
I have never played MTG online and I have a login so I found where I can download the helper file. I did that. I then installed magic, the only problem is it has no file extension. What program should this be running under? What can I do? It saved it as all files instead of associating it with a specific program. I have Windows XP.
Thanks everyone for the comments! They've been very constructive and very well thought out (well, almost all of them, anyway!)
I'm mostly just getting a feel for the pro's and con's so far so please keep the comments coming.
And I admit that I've learned more about my reader's habits this week than any other article, which totally rocks! :)
I don't really like the new layout, because I just like to scroll and read everything. But if you have to keep the new format, then can you have next buttons at the end of each section?
I hate having to scroll back up to read the next section. Also, highlight what current section I am on, so I don't have to remember which section I was at.
... if they add the same buttons along the bottom and have it automatically scroll back to the top, I think this *is* an improvement. By doing it in javascript, this already has the advantage of not requiring a reload to get to the next section (which is usually my biggest complaint against paginated articles). If the buttons are along the bottom, they are in a good location to choose after reading a section, and if doing so often scrolls back to the top, you're not adding tedious user actions. And there is a functional benefit, since it makes it easier to skip sections you don't care about (and allows hammy to pack more information in if he wants without making the article seem ridiculously huge).
Hate the new layout. I'm probably not the target audience though. I always read all the article and like only having to hit the down arrow to read the entire thing. When I click on a card that doesn't open in a new tab and click back it brings me back to the intro page which is rather annoying, but I could right click or alt click and avoid that. Ultimately, I like the idea of trying something new, but personally (even when implemented better as others have suggested) the new layout will never be as good as the previous style for my own purposes.
I like the tabs. Is it really so difficult to click 'page up'?
Good info as always.
Without a printable link on puremtgo.com the articles are tough to print out. This one is so difficult to print that I won't even bother. But that won't stop me from reading and enjoying it later, keep up the great content!
-Paul
I personally like the new interface. Perhaps you can figure out a way to also put the menu tabs at the bottom too, with a reset to the top of the page so it makes it easy to start the next section as well.
The new Channel and Strip Mine arts are gorgeous; I wonder why Wizards didn't feature them in the article over some of the...less well done ones. Too bad they're not available unfoiled. I like the new article format; makes it easy to skip over some of the parts which I don't typically read but others value and improves the overall organization. Links at the bottom of each section would be a plus, though.
I'll give you 5 stars for effort with the new layout.
I'm not sure if I like it but perhaps that's just because it's new and I'm old! lol.
I'd like to see it stay for an article or two so that I can really get used to it. If anything I would suggest less headings. Having the spoiler like that is fine and also the totally descrete parts but to have, for example, the card prices and graphs in two different tabs felt like using them just for the sake of it.
If you can duplicate the tabs at the bottom then great but I guess I'm just used to reading big analysis documents on screen so I have no problem with using the 'home', 'end' navigation style buttons rather than using the mouse to scroll.
Keep the format for a week or two, or an article or two and use it where is benefits and not just because you can and I think you have a winner.
The new layout is a good idea, though I too must admit that it's not executed the best way.
It's great because you can easily skip the topics you're not interested in. It's a bit frustrating because I have to switch on JavaScript every time (I usually browse with JavaScript deactivated, because it's the safest way regarding web site exploits - and waaaay faster on many major sites). OK, I can handle that.
And for the scrolling up again: it's indeed the only thing preventing my opinion from being "all fine", because the usability is indeed quite bad. On the other hand, there's no need to "scroll up" if you're familiar with your keyboard's functions within your browser: Pressing "Home" brings you back to the top of the page!
I'm leaning against the new layout. It's cumbersome and just doesn't feel like an article bit, like some of the other guys who posted, maybe I'm just used to the traditional layout.
Also, is anyone else having problems with the new WOTC forums? I can't get it to take my personal info and even get to look at the rest of the content. IT won't take my user name and password at all.
Having not drafted M10 at all aside from the fun site (http://www.ccgdecks.com) that gives simulation drafts I don't have a lot of comments but it seems there were several points where your picks could have been stronger or better for you. But you say this as you go along. Could have picked this or this might have been better. Double fireball + soldiers does seem like a workable plan and obviously it did work for 2 matches so good job. Too bad about the replays.
I thought I wanted it to be in the deck, it turned out that I sided her out after every g1.
I think you missed my point.
It was early in the draft, and I was unsure that red was going to be anymore than a splash. At the time, I felt the twin fireballs were going to be it, and I mean that. I thought the only two red spells in my deck would be the twin fireballs.
I'm sorry you stopped reading.
One of the recurring ideas in any document design class is that (except for special cases) you should prioritize usability above visual appeal.
When someone reads an article, it's easiest to scroll from top to bottom once, not back and forth six times. Since there's no functional benefit to the new format, and in fact quite a hindrance to it, I'd have to encourage against it for the future. Sorry :\ I admit it does look cool though.
Due to the presence of Illusionary Servant and Ice Cage, not to mention Oakenform, and a plethora of combat stalling walls and regenerators, Blinding Mage is huge in M2010. Because of this, Blinding Mage is a whole lot better in M2010 than tappers/trappers in previous formats.
There is no way that 17 lands in a 41-card deck is correct. Especially with 5- and 6-drops, and X-spells that want maximum mana. Did you really need a 1/1 life-gaining creature for a deck of this type?
Knights are rumored to be getting a HUGE boost from a new mechanic in Zendikar, so probably some speculation demand.
Well its an interesting idea for an article layout. Very simple javascript/css and very doable. Not sure the actual execution is great but that's the web guy in me. Im no designer but it seems to lack something. I do like the idea and perhaps a sidebar menu would make more sense. For one thing it would allow for more topics without a scroll to the right. Smaller browsers can handle down better than across.
As usual the content itself is great. Destroy all creatures...but no stops regen...sadly not a Wrath reprint. But yay for the 4cmc. I wonder how hot it will be. I guess that will depend on how hot the demand is in standard since we still have Wrath in the other formats.
I too am inclined to say even if I had the money I wouldn't buy the From the Vaults set. Individual cards sure but what use do I have for something restricted/banned in many formats? Collector's item? well maybe for some...not for me.
I did briefly take a look at the new forum and I am not thrilled with it but perhaps it will grow on me.
I wonder why Knights gained .2 this week. Did someone find another deck to break them in?
I stopped reading after Veteran Armorsmith -> Seismic Strike. This deck had the potential to become one of the most broken m10 decks I've ever seen, but you denied it because "you dont want to play red maincolor". Just sad.
@Tchoob: Actually there are very few decks where sleep is really good. I think its really good in UG, but sucks in the controllish decks and UW just doesnt need it.
Yes, and you saw a Veteran Swordsmith go 14th pick also.
Clearly not the best drafters in the world.
I think I take both of the dual lands though. You can afford to not run the Soul Warden at the very least.
-M