Magic Online is an Abomination

[The Atog Lord]

Dear Friends,

I am writing this post in order to describe my evening. When the night began, I was in a very good mood. I had won a 27 person Modern tournament, and I decided that I would give Magic Online another try. After all, I hadn't played any games on it in years, and there was a new interface. I was really hoping that I could get the hang of it. Maybe I'd even buy into Vintage online in the near future.

Well, I downloaded the new client. I wasn't able to figure out how to pay Wizards my money in order to participate in a draft. It turns out that you need to select "Release Queues" if you want to draft Vintage Masters, rather than "Queues." I never in my life would have figured this out without being directed to do so by the friendly denizens of the Support Chatoom.

I played in two drafts. I lost in the first draft in no small part because I skipped right through one of my own turns. So, I decide to give things another try. Maybe I was just getting used to the interface. I started well in the second draft. I haven't drafted anything exciting, but I started off 2-0. I lose my first game of the finals, but I am about to win the second. Then it happens.

I discard Arrogant Wurm. And the dialogue on the left-hand-side of the screen asks whether I would like to cast him for his madness cost. And the _only_ option is No. Really, it asks the question and the single sole option is not to cast him for his madness cost. It turns out that you need to click on the card itself, ignoring the dialogue entirely, if you want to cast him. My opponent kindly informed me of this after the Wurm hit the graveyard. My opponent then proceeded to win the game that should have been a win for me.

So, naturally, I contact customer support after this. After all, I was just defeated by their user interface. And it turns out that, in order to make an appeal for a refund, you need to make a new account. Yes, a new account with Wizards. Not your Planeswalker Points account. Not even your Magic Online account. No, you need to use a brand new account. Alright, I was willing to play along with this. Time for yet another Wizards of the Coast account. I went about making my account. And then, as I was creating an account named "The Atog Lord" I was absolutely flabbergasted.


Screen Name is inappropriate


Yes, that's right. The Atog Lord, which has been my screen name since the 1990's, was suddenly inappropriate. It was perfectly fine as my Magic Online name. But somehow, the delicate sensibilities of artifacts everywhere would be offended were I to request a refund from Wizards because of their abominable user interface while calling myself the Lord of the Atogs.

And that, oh reader, is where I threw up my hands and decided that I could not continue going through this process any further. Wizards can have my $25. Clearly they need it -- they can't seem to hire any half-decent interface designers.

Rich

[LotusHead]

I feel your pain. I downloaded Magic Online several weeks ago, in order to get used to the interface.

I too skipped my whole turn, or first mainphase (and hence combat step), fiddled with card icons trying to get what I want happen to happen, and timed out G3 (losing match in first round)

I'm sure once we are used to it, it becomes bearable, but practice makes perfect.  I practice now in the new player things, using my starter sealed deck as my newbie deck. (again, to get used to interface, etc)

[Zherbus]

On the v3 client, I can blow through turns quite nimbly because I have a lot of experience with it. On the new beta, I make some stupid mistakes from getting used to it.

And while I'd love to be the irritated consumer and 'vote with my wallet', many of us have to turn to MTGO or there is no Magic. So, as we've done for years, we try to make the best of it.

[Coopes]

Yeah, it's bad. Unfortunately in my situation I won't be able to play paper vintage for a long time due to $$$ requirements. This is something MTGO circumvents, and for that I am appreciative. Playing on the v4 client is not going to be fun, they have tuned it for standard, block, and drafts but not for legacy/vintage. There's a lot of bugs//downsides to playing in these last 2 formats on v4 ( one being graveyard doesn't pop out ).

[Archae]

I'm surprised that MTGO isn't cross-platform. I would be willing to play, but buying a copy of Windows/dual booting for that express purpose seems like jumping through unnecessary hoops.

[AmbivalentDuck]

many of us have to turn to MTGO or there is no Magic. So, as we've done for years, we try to make the best of it.

Cockatrice. The interface is pretty good and the opponents are of decent quality.

[Shock Wave]

MTGO is far from perfect. It definitely has its issues, and can be tedious and unforgiving during the learning stages. That being said, once you do get the hang of it, you really do develop an appreciation. Once in a while I misclick, and it is annoying, but a lot less aggravating than the many things that can do wrong in a physical game of magic. In my humble opinion, it has a lot of advantages when compared to paper magic and is worth the trouble to learn. Also, the application is improving, albeit slowly. If you take the time to submit bug reports when something doesn't function correctly, they generally are reviewed and addressed.

Rich, I suggest you give it some time before you choose to opt out. Almost every player has gone through the aggravation of learning the ropes. I promise you would enjoy Vintage on MTGO if you gave it a chance.

[Zherbus]

many of us have to turn to MTGO or there is no Magic. So, as we've done for years, we try to make the best of it.

Cockatrice. The interface is pretty good and the oneness are of decent quality.

No, I'm good on avoiding that player pool.

[GainsBanding]

Think of it as completely starting over.  Try playing in the new player room for a few days to get used to the interface.  Then work up to casual and tournament practice before playing anything for money.  Misclicking is the worst, but it will go away.  Not entirely - watch LSV's recent VMA draft on Channel Fireball.  He accidentally mulls his hand in one game.  Or watch any Conley Woods draft video ever - he misclicks everything.  That doesn't make it feel any better, but know that with practice it happens much, much less.  And all the non-intuitive aspects of the program get better, too.  You learn to tap your Workshop and Ancient Tomb correctly so you can cast your spell and activate your ability.  You learn to stack Tangle Wire's triggers so you remove the counter first.  Don't worry - you'll mess both of those up at some point.  Just like all the weird quirky interactions in Magic itself that you learned, you learn the stupid quirks of the terrible program.  Just expect to be a beginner all over again for a little while.  It's frustrating because you know how to play the game, you just don't know how to play it this way. 
I've only played paper Magic a handful of times since 1995.  If you gave me a pile of paper cards and asked me to sift through them after casting Demonic Tutor, shuffle them by hand, try to be aware of what step the game was on, try to calculate Tarmogoyf's P/T, pick up a pen and write down a life total and then put it down again, remember if I had played a land yet after casting a bunch of spells, remember that those two pennies are both 1/1's and that die set to six is six more 1/1's, ask you what you named with Revoker, etc etc etc, I'd get so overwhelmed and frustrated.  Because I know how to play the game, I just don't know how to play it that way.  So yeah the program is terrible but after a while you just get used to it.  Just be patient.     

[policehq]

Yeah, I am sorry for your frustration, but no one would suggest putting $50 up on your first MTGO experience in a long time and on the new client.

There are probably filters set in place to prevent certain names from existing due to people's sensitivities, and I imagine "Lord" is one of them. It's annoying, but it seems like an easy line for them to have set to avoid trouble (which is more of a cultural issue than one of MTGO).

I can also understand hostility against MTGO when you already own $4k decks. It is nice to be one of the 10-25 people that can attend local tournaments in about four cities of the USA. The rest of us are extremely excited that multiple Vintage tournaments happen every day, new players are coming in, innovation is happening, players can "go infinite" (making their money back) a lot more reliably than in paper, etc.

I think it's kind of tacky that a moderator of this site would take this stance on MTGO and post it with this title. Vintage on MTGO is great for the format and hundreds of old and new players with more to come.

[Montolio]

On the v3 client, I can blow through turns quite nimbly because I have a lot of experience with it. On the new beta, I make some stupid mistakes from getting used to it.

And while I'd love to be the irritated consumer and 'vote with my wallet', many of us have to turn to MTGO or there is no Magic. So, as we've done for years, we try to make the best of it.

+1. V4 is going to take some serious getting used to, as I make play mistakes that would never happen on V3.
I remember transitioning from V2.5 to V3 and thinking to myself V3 is garbage. I got used to it in fast order though.
The thing that scares me is that I don't think V3 was ever as bad as V4.

[Zherbus]

I think it's kind of tacky that a moderator of this site would take this stance on MTGO and post it with this title. Vintage on MTGO is great for the format and hundreds of old and new players with more to come.

I'm okay with it and not just because it's Rich.

I want people to know the honest truth about MTGO before getting into it. I want people to jump in on the Vintage craze that's hitting MTGO, but I want them going in with realistic expectations. I want them to understand that having multiple tournaments available every day, the ability to 'go infinite', and unlimited solid quality testing come with the downside of new interface problems and other 'quirks'.

We'd love to have more of you around (The Mana Drain clan is at 30 members strong), but I don't want people expecting to walk into the land of sunshine and rainbows where nothing can go wrong.

[Klep]

Magic Online is great for providing a way for people who don't have much opportunity to play Magic to do so in a structured and sanctioned environment.  VMA in particular is a blessing to Vintage.

Magic Online is also a really terrible piece of software that WotC has grossly underdeveloped, full of bugs and terrible interface decisions that are obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with UI design.

V3 is bad, and V4 seems at least as bad.  I haven't tried out V4 yet personally because its memory leaks are legendary and I'd prefer not to have that contaminating my machine until I have no choice.

[The Atog Lord]

Hello Police,

I can certainly see why you would not like hearing anything negative about Magic Online. There is indeed a large, captive market that would like to be playing Magic, but is restricted to Magic Online for many geographic reasons. That is true.

However, I don't think that means that we should be silent on the shortcomings of Magic Online as a software product. Just the opposite. Wizards of the Coast knows that they have a captive market, and so may be less incentivized to give Magic Online the development it would have received were there competitors.

My concern, Police, is indeed for the Vintage community. I am concerned that my friends are being forced to use a sub-standard program because they have no other way to play Vintage. I would very like Magic Online to be a good experience. I have seen multiple figures from the community's past rise back up and play Vintage Magic Online. That is great. I'm happy see Kowal playing again in any form. I've even given serious thought to buying in myself, but now think I may wait a while.

But the fact is that such poorly done user interface is inexcusable. You might wonder whether I am qualified to make that assessment. I am getting my PhD in computer science from Carnegie Mellon in, God Willing, a few months. I have worked extensively in the space of human-computer interaction. I've been an author on six papers at the biggest human-computer interaction conference, CHI. I have done work on how humans interact with computers at a startup and this past summer at Google.

So, yes, I'm not entirely unqualified to be making these sorts of comments. And have no doubt, my concern is for the Magic community. If Vintage on Magic Online is going to be the primary way that people are playing Vintage, then I really want that experience to be a good one. I am hoping that Wizards is hearing this.

[Shock Wave]

Hello Police,

I can certainly see why you would not like hearing anything negative about Magic Online. There is indeed a large, captive market that would like to be playing Magic, but is restricted to Magic Online for many geographic reasons. That is true.

However, I don't think that means that we should be silent on the shortcomings of Magic Online as a software product. Just the opposite. Wizards of the Coast knows that they have a captive market, and so may be less incentivized to give Magic Online the development it would have received were there competitors.

My concern, Police, is indeed for the Vintage community. I am concerned that my friends are being forced to use a sub-standard program because they have no other way to play Vintage. I would very like Magic Online to be a good experience. I have seen multiple figures from the community's past rise back up and play Vintage Magic Online. That is great. I'm happy see Kowal playing again in any form. I've even given serious thought to buying in myself, but now think I may wait a while.

But the fact is that such poorly done user interface is inexcusable. You might wonder whether I am qualified to make that assessment. I am getting my PhD in computer science from Carnegie Mellon in, God Willing, a few months. I have worked extensively in the space of human-computer interaction. I've been an author on six papers at the biggest human-computer interaction conference, CHI. I have done work on how humans interact with computers at a startup and this past summer at Google.

So, yes, I'm not entirely unqualified to be making these sorts of comments. And have no doubt, my concern is for the Magic community. If Vintage on Magic Online is going to be the primary way that people are playing Vintage, then I really want that experience to be a good one. I am hoping that Wizards is hearing this.

Rich,

I don't see any real criticism of the interface aside from these points:

• You don't like the way the Madness mechanic works
• You don't like that the VMA drafts are not intuitively located in the UI

On the first point, yes, I've also fallen victim to the "Madness" confusion. However, I learned from this. Since then, if a situation arises where some interaction is not proceeding as expected, I ask one of the ORCs. I usually get a satisfactory response and I am able to resume with the intended action. If not, I file for reimbursement. I've filed many times and have only been denied once, because the mistake was actually my own.

On the second point, I also was not able to find the VMA drafts at first. Like you, I asked the ORC. Problem solved.

The tone of your post communicates more frustration than anything else. Since you are well educated in computer science, perhaps your issues would be better served if you highlighted the actual concerns you have with the application and directed them to Wizards. I'm not sure the way you are presenting your case here is actually benefiting the community. After all, there are plenty of Vintage players who enjoy the interface enough to use it. Again, it's not perfect, but it is perfectly fine for enjoying Vintage online. Your post may actually dissuade people from using it all, and that would be a shame.

Just my $0.02.

[KanaKaishou]

Rich, the new client is buggy, and behaves strangely, but your complaints are more of the "I haven't gotten used to working the client" rather than the client itself. As to "vma drafts are hard to find" and.support is awful...both seem pretty true.

My complaints re: the new client are more performance based. There's no reason that MTGO should be as sluggish as it is, and crash as often as it does in game.

[KrauserKrauser]

How is commenting critically on the non-intuitive interface that makes it hard to learn not commenting on the client?

I've played V3 for years and still make mistakes on it because it has wierd UI choices and picks and chooses what cards require me to click where to do what.  There is limited consistency because the MTGO client is designed that way.

Playing with V4 for a few games, this is worse as I have even less flexibility in what goes where in the game.

Choices like putting the turn phases in the middle to take up as much room as possible instead of the compact list on V3 is just a small part in what makes V4 an even worse user experience.

The fact that they can't even give me the option of the V3 display to ease the transition is even more ridiculous.  They are obviously extremely challenged to the point of incompetence when it comes to UI design.  The design is straight out of the 90's.  Hard lines everywhere.  Unmovable windows where button trigged pop ups would accomplish the same task while taking infinitely less screen space.

I hate to harp on the Hearthstone comparison, but seriously, that is great and intuitive design.  MTGO is a more complex game, sure, but you're telling me WOTC should be anything but ashamed at the new version of MTGO now that competitors are finally arriving?

I'll play and I'll pay because I love Magic, but the program is a joke.

[The Atog Lord]

Rich and Vasu, I haven't used the program nearly enough to make a solid evaluation. Based on my limited use, however, I think that a primary criticism I have of the interface is its inconsistency. Consistency in an interface is absolutely critical because that is how users can build up an intuition for using the application. Users have absolutely no interest in dealing with an interface per se. They want to navigate the interface as seamlessly as possible in order to do what they are actually trying to use the program for: in this case, playing Magic. When the interface is making me think about how to do what I want to do in the game, rather than letting me think about how to play the game, then that is a problem.

The Madness issue exemplifies this inconsistency. I need to click on the dialogue on the left-hand side if I opt not to pay the Madness cost. But if I do wish to pay the madness cost, then I need to click on the card itself. Why can't it simply give me the option to pay the madness cost in the same dialogue?

But inconsistency is not found only in the Madness mechanic. Sometimes, hovering over a card will reveal the card's text. Other times, that did not appear to work and I needed to right-click the card.

And triggered abilities are a whole different issue. For those, a semi-transparent image was superimposed over the screen. In some cases, but not others, I was asked to put triggered abilities onto the stack, even when there was only a single triggered ability. Given that I couldn't opt not to put it onto the stack, having me click that floating image was entirely pointless.

When I resolved a Man-O-War, I was greeted with a floating image. I needed to select a target. I needed to drag that floating image around on the screen because it was obscuring the creature that I was intending to target with the ability. That entire interaction could have been handled better.

Beyond those consistency issues, there were a number of other, smaller issues that I noticed with the interface.

Zones have a very specific definition in Magic, and there is no Revealed Cards zone. Except in Magic Online, where confusingly that has become a zone, despite not being a zone.

Screen space is used to display cards in a graveyard, despite that not being very important in most cases.

I looked at the user interface options, but wasn't really sure what all of them meant. I would have liked a way to un-stack my lands. I don't stack my lands in real life, but on Magic Online, the lands insisted on jumping into hard-to-count stacks. There might have been a way to fix that, but I couldn't find it.

I also would have liked an optional way to pass priority automatically when I didn't have decisions to make. In other words, whenever there was only one possible decision, I'd have liked to have that decision made automatically. That shouldn't be the default of course. It would be really bad for bluffing. But it would be a very good option, especially for someone like me who was struggling with the interface and therefore concerned about running out of time. It was frustrating, for example, that when my only creature was provoked, I was asked to "choose" blockers, despite there being exactly one possible choice to be made. There wasn't even any bluffing involved, and I certainly didn't get to make a choice.

But I won't be all negative. There was a huge improvement over the last time I played on Magic Online. Now, the Mulligan dialogue asks whether you would like to Mulligan, and gives you the options of "Keep" and "Mulligan." This is a tremendous improvement over the "Yes" and "No" of the last time I played.

So, after a few hours, those are my thoughts on the Magic Online interface. I wouldn't even have been bothering to think about this if I didn't think Wizards could be fixing them. None of these are going to be huge or expensive fixes. But I think that things like that -- inexpensive, easy fixes -- can make a huge difference in a product.

[Zherbus]

Since we're being forced into this in a little over two weeks, it'll be truly telling what they accomplish by then and how long it takes to improve things after the fact.

[KrauserKrauser]

I want to be optimistic about their ability to accomplish tasks once they are no longer forced to split their resources between two platforms, but honestly some of the problems with v4 are so fundamental that I don't think that having the resources added to the pile are really going to get them anywhere.

I can bet that Worth and co. are saying to themselves "once everyone is working on v4 and we've scrapped v3, everything will be better."  While I hope that is the case, my experience as a user going through multiple iterations of the program lead me to believe otherwise.

I somehow doubt that their best UI guys were working on V3 or that a lack of people is what causes the marketplace to be a hard to use wreck of a tool.

They might be telling themselves things will turnaround after July 18th, and I'm sure that is what they are telling management, but my expectations are much lower.

Worth is famous for over promising and under-delivering.  Vintage Masters marketing was handled somewhat poorly, but came out roughly on schedule.

Leagues were promised by the end of 2014.  I remain eternally skeptical of their ability to deliver.

[KanaKaishou]

Rich, that's true--I don't want to fight the interface to play Magic--but the beauty of the game is that there are these gnarly and rule breaking cards. Consistency is valuable, but there's a real limit as far as Magic goes. For that matter, while Madness is confusing to resolve on New MTGO, it's consistent within a certain ideal of how you play: to cast spells, click on them. While I think there are improvements to be made (notably, making better use of the screen space), the actual mechanics aren't something that I see as necessarily fixable. I'm probably among the least picky of their users (it took me all of 10 seconds to figure out how to madness, though I still thought it was dumb to have that many clicks. The worst I've been through is clicking through, and letting spells resolve without intending to, but that's not very different from absently OK-ing the tinker which kills you), though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

[Smmenen]

There is no doubt that the Magic Online program is deeply flawed and very imperfect, but I think the title is more than hyperbolic.  Even taking all of the criticisms as valid and truthful, I don't think they amount to being an "abomination."  At most, they suggest areas for serious improvement.  I agree with policehq that a more sober title would have been preferred, given the reasons he mentioned there.   

[The Atog Lord]

I agree that calling Magic Online an abomination is a bit hyperbolic. But I stand by the comment. If Wizards of the Coast were operating out of a garage and couldn't afford to hire more than a handful of developers, then I wouldn't be calling this an abomination. But Wizards of the Coast is an enormous multi-national company with the resources to hire good people. The only way that Wizards ends up with a program like Magic Online in its current form is a steadfast refusal to invest the resources required to make the program good. And that approach is, indeed, an abomination.

Magic has become the game it is in no small part because of excellent decision-making from Wizards of the Coast over the years. I don't agree with all of their decisions, but they have done a tremendous job steering Magic. They have resisted the urge to cash in today, instead focusing on keeping the game vibrant over the years. They have dodged many of the pitfalls that have collapsed competing card games that we've seen. And they have continued to impress with their commitment to quality and good decision-making.

Sadly, their approach to Magic Online appears to be otherwise. They seem to be unwilling to hire the right people, or give them the right resources, to make this product good. They have decided, for whatever reason, not to do this right. Perhaps they feel that they already have such a captive market that they don't need to. Perhaps they feel they don't need to make this product good to get value from it. Whatever the reason, Magic Online is inconsistent with the high standard of excellence that Wizards has set for itself. And that -- the low-quality of Magic Online in the face of all that -- is the abomination.

[Hrishi]

I've been told that Magic Online makes them ungodly amounts of money. You'd think they would put some money into making it a better product. While I find Hearthstone not comparable to MTG as a game, they really did a nice job with the interface. They should learn from that.

[conboy31]

If Wizards of the Coast were operating out of a garage and couldn't afford to hire more than a handful of developers, then I wouldn't be calling this an abomination. But Wizards of the Coast is an enormous multi-national company with the resources to hire good people.

Completely agree.  Taking into account the resources and scope of the company and the possible market of magic online, the client is a farce.

[Meddling Mike]

Sadly, their approach to Magic Online appears to be otherwise. They seem to be unwilling to hire the right people, or give them the right resources, to make this product good. They have decided, for whatever reason, not to do this right. Perhaps they feel that they already have such a captive market that they don't need to. Perhaps they feel they don't need to make this product good to get value from it. Whatever the reason, Magic Online is inconsistent with the high standard of excellence that Wizards has set for itself. And that -- the low-quality of Magic Online in the face of all that -- is the abomination.

Honestly, if i had people throwing money at my sub par product, then i wouldn't really think of upgrading that product until it started to become less popular. And i imagine that magic online will experience growth for years to come.

I'm not sure that the latter part of that is true. I think Hearthstone is a serious competitor with a substantially better UI. This could certainly stunt the growth of MTGO and cut into their market share. Blizzard-Activision is a multi-billion dollar company rather than a scrappy startup fighting for market share like Solforge. They have a massive existing customer base that is familiar with the lore behind their game from their incredibly successful brand of MMORPG and RTS Warcraft games. Speaking just from my own experience, I have an MTGO account and I am precisely the target audience for their Vintage Masters account. I have been entirely satisfied playing Hearthstone on my iPad rather than putting money into buying into MTGO Vintage. When VMA was first announced buying in was something I had seriously considered. I haven't actually put any money into Hearthstone yet, but at this point I feel it's just a matter of time before I do.

[Guli]

many of us have to turn to MTGO or there is no Magic. So, as we've done for years, we try to make the best of it.

Cockatrice. The interface is pretty good and the oneness are of decent quality.

No, I'm good on avoiding that player pool.

What is that suppose to mean?

[AmbivalentDuck]

No, I'm good on avoiding that player pool.

What is that suppose to mean?

Presumably he thinks that the Vintage players on Cockatrice have inadequate personalities or play skill. I'm not sure how high play skill is on average (and maybe having to purchase $1000 worth of e-cardboard screens for investment in the format), but I've had no difficulty finding skilled opponents.

We can and should get back to running online tourneys as well.

[vaughnbros]

After adjusting to the counter intuitive UI that looks like it was built with graphics from 10 years ago, I've come to the conclusion that MTGO is a different game than real magic the gathering.  Some of the differences of MTGO I've noticed:
1. You have to place time stops at particular intervals of each turn before the match starts in order to interact during those those time points.
2. The 25 minute chess type clock makes slower control decks significantly worse.
3. You can't skip through tedious steps.  This makes certain combos unplayable, and others worse than they are in real life.
4. There is no social aspect to the online version at all.
As someone who loves slow control decks, and does not enjoy doing monotonous activities in his free time, I will personally not be joining MTGO.  I will consider it if it ever becomes the same as the paper game.

[Valorale]

It is an abomination. People have cited Hearthstone, there is also SolForge and Duels of Champion as other examples card game interfaces that are vastly superior. Duels of the Planeswalker is vastly superior.

Personally my gripe with it is the trading / selling mechanism in the game. I am astonished at what an absolute shitpile it is. It feels like ive been transported back to 1999 Everquest where I needed to run to EastCommonland, stand by the third torch and shout my sales. Why is there not a searchable interface where I can type in the name of a card, see a list of sellers and buy from the lowest one .. like TCGPlayer? This is so ass backwards my head spins.