Magic Online is an Abomination

[KrauserKrauser]

The argument against an auction house ala WoW or Diablo III that I have heard most often is a legal one that such a thing would bring MTGO up against Video Poker / Gambling laws.

Since you are buying the in game currency to both play the game and buy from dealers you get into interesting territory once you allow direct sales or treat it exactly like the currency it is standing in for.  Breaking the tickets into fractions of a ticket is one of the problems that I have heard limits their ability to enable trading directly through the program.

While I'm not 100% sold that they shouldn't do it anyway, I'm sure this is a fight that Wizards does not want to fight.

That said, there has to be a better way.  The Beta trading screen/classified is even worse than the v3 train wreck.

[Tha Gunslinga]

The issue with Cockatrice and whatnot is that there is no screen at all, and no way to enforce rules issues, so if you and an opponent disagree about how the upkeep works or something, you're just stuck.  On MODO all that is enforced and you can't argue over it.  Makes things much smoother.

As far as the gambling thing goes, Wizards of the Coast's parent company Hasbro has a market cap of 7 billion dollars.  I'm pretty sure they can afford lawyers who can figure out a way around or through whatever nebulous "internet gambling" laws might be an issue.

[Valorale]

I'm pretty sure they can afford lawyers who can figure out a way around or through whatever nebulous "internet gambling" laws might be an issue.

Exactly, I cannot see the threat of an online gambling smackdown being what holds Hasbro back from improving the trading/buy/sell interface. The bottom line I believe this is why the interface is so shitty: http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Wizards-of-the-Coast-Reviews-E4718.htm

Shitty managers coupled with a company that wont pay competitive wages to retain skilled developers.

[MaximumCDawg]

Yeah, calling it an abomination is not really all that hyperbolic.  The game is astoundingly bad for a company that makes as much money as Wizards does.  I've been told before that it has ended up so hideous because WotC was not willing to license out their game to a company that actually makes video games, but that can't be right because Duels of the Planeswalkers.

It's just bad, they know it's bad, and why they don't trash it and make something that looks and plays like it was coded in the last decade is one of the great mysteries of life, I guess.

[KrauserKrauser]

Not really that much of a mystery.

Sunk cost alone would be enough to give it the managerial momentum to continue on in it's currently crappy state.

Combine that with a pitch to upper management that they will make a viable digital games division "once they work out the kinks" or "as soon as the players stop complaining about change" and you have the current model of existence. 

Doesn't hurt that the game still does make significant revenue, even with gross under-investment and poor development.

Even any internal Chicken Littles would be silenced by the reality of increasing revenues regardless of product quality. 

Sadly, things move slow until they reach critical mass so their lacksdasical attitude will be fine until it's not and they won't have the time, resources or know how to right the ship.

[MTGFan]

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.

As someone who has played elite players in person and online, in both MTGO and Cockatrice, and MWS... there is definitely a pool of skilled players on Cockatrice playing eternal format games.

You can maybe make the claim that because less is on the line (no prize support, less investment in cards) these players play less tightly than they ordinarily would in a tournament or in a Daily Event on MTGO..... but as long as you stick to eternal formats and use your buddy list / ignore list on Cockatrice you can definitely find quality opposition.

Also, yes, while MTGO is nice for what it provides (tournament support, rules checking in-game), Wizards should definitely be ashamed that a free software product developed by a single German guy in his spare time (Cockatrice) has essentially a more functional and intuitive UI than the flagship digital product of a massively financed multinational company. Taking into consideration the resources at Wizards' disposal, MTGO is certainly a joke when compared to what it *could* be and *should* be.

[MaximumCDawg]

On MODO all that is enforced and you can't argue over it.  Makes things much smoother.

Except when the game decides you lose because your opponent has no creature for you to take with Order of Succession.  Or any number of other errors where the rules don't get enforced. 

This also boggles my mind - Magic is a game of rules.  How can it be that hard to just implement the rules into the on-line game?

[vaughnbros]

On MODO all that is enforced and you can't argue over it.  Makes things much smoother.

Except when the game decides you lose because your opponent has no creature for you to take with Order of Succession.  Or any number of other errors where the rules don't get enforced.  

This also boggles my mind - Magic is a game of rules.  How can it be that hard to just implement the rules into the on-line game?

Magics rules are extremely complicated comparative to other card games and there are a large number of rule breaking cards.  So without top of the line programmers, which wizards clearly is not hiring given the quality of their product, you are going to get a lot of errors.

I really wish they'd just outsource MTGO to star city or someone else.  Wizards has made it clear they are completely inept at handling much beyond designing new sets.

[Zeksagmak]

The all the possible interactions are kind of hard to code in MTG since there's so many unique or similar but subtly different effects.  I found the best way to play is to just put a stop between every single phase and F2 through the ones I don't care about.  I never F6 since I'm paying real money for this and it's not worth the extra few seconds I save by hitting it.  The problem with all the stops is that it creates a different level of bluffing on MTGO.  Even if I have nothing when you cast a spell, just tanking (or being afk) for a minute or 2 can put some people off.  Overall while the UI is awful, I do enjoy being able to do drafts at 1am.

edit: I'd also like to add that I find playing the clock nice.  I personally really dislike it when games go to time IRL since I always play fast and it's always my opponent that takes forever and a day if we're going to time.  With the chess-clock setup, it's very easy to see who's eating up the majority of the time and reward playing at a decent pace.  However, this also brings out a problem with the game in that sometimes people try to take advantage of it by slow rolling your clock or just stalling until you time out. 

[Zherbus]

As far as Vintage goes, there's no relevant competitive cards that don't work.

You typically have to reach deep into the stanky rectum of obscure casually-whim cards to find some shit that doesn't work.

[Shock Wave]

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.

1. How is this any different than asking your opponent to stop on their upkeep in a physical game?
2. Why does it make slow decks significantly worse? I've been playing the slowest deck in the history of Vintage for like 10+ years, and I play it often on MODO. It is not worse or at a disadvantage in any way. If you're having difficulty with time, it's either because you aren't familiar enough with the interface yet, or you're not playing fast enough. It doesn't have anything to do with your deck.
3. Can you provide an example? I play Dragon on MODO without any issues. The combo is rather straight forward, and yes, it is tedious --- but it's not like it's difficult to execute.

[KanaKaishou]

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.

I can attest that the 4 rounds of a MTGO daily aren't terribly different from those at a TDG open. You'll face some real bricks in round 1/2 on occasion, but aside from that, players are competent, and in the last couple of rounds, you're likely as not to get a real ringer against you.

[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.

1. How is this any different than asking your opponent to stop on their upkeep in a physical game?
2. Why does it make slow decks significantly worse? I've been playing the slowest deck in the history of Vintage for like 10+ years, and I play it often on MODO. It is not worse or at a disadvantage in any way. If you're having difficulty with time, it's either because you aren't familiar enough with the interface yet, or you're not playing fast enough. It doesn't have anything to do with your deck.
3. Can you provide an example? I play Dragon on MODO without any issues. The combo is rather straight forward, and yes, it is tedious --- but it's not like it's difficult to execute.

1.  If I want the opportunity to cast a draw step clique I have to set the program to stop at the end of my opponents draw step EVERY time.  Not just the one time I want to cast it.  This creates a number of steps that I then have to physically click through every turn even though I'll only use them a handful of times a game, adding to the tedium.
2.  I've personally been playing pauper on MODO for the last couple years because it doesn't exist in real life and it's cheap so I'm pretty familiar with the UI.  The control deck I play regularly can't actually win before turn 7 and usually goes until turn 20+ in a control mirror.  I've lost far more games with this deck due to the 25 minute time limit than my opponent actually beating me.  When I'm making 100 descisions a game and my opponent makes 10 it doesn't matter how fast I'm playing the clock becomes a factor.  I play landstill in vintage and I can imagine having the same problem arise.  This is compared to real life where I have drawn 1 match, where I was on dredge, in the last 3 years of play.
3.  This is more of a personal annoyance with it than anything for most decks.  In real life you can set vault/key aside.  You can pretty much just say infinite mana with salvagers/lotus.  As you mentioned it also affects dragon.  This combined with the clock can become an issue for certain strategies.

[Zherbus]

Admittedly, it was an overly brief response. The response that I was given, as someone who's been around playing on free clients since the nineties, was pretty dismissive as if I hadn't thought of it in the 20 years I've been playing Magic. It was also not the first time Duck sent that notion my way and I already responded prior in detail. I was being equally dismissive, but since people are taking such issue with it:

I know some very high quality players who use Cockatrice, but that's a totally different animal altogether. I have a familiarity enough with the MTGO crowd that I can get in on a game against someone who is of notable play quality at any time that I am awake, if I want to test. I can also choose from a number of playable events that can likely turn $4 into $14 or more unless I punt. I get to play with something on the line against people who have something on the line, however minimal.

None of those things I can do on Cockatrice with such regularity. I also have the experience of playing against really niche archetypes and questionable players on free clients, when what I want to do is test against a deck I am testing slots and strategies against. That, and I've had some real harsh personalities play against me that just made me close my laptop or find that goldfishing against myself was preferable.

I do not find that Cockatrice fits my needs.

Also, my money in MTGO isn't wasted. I can sell out right now at a much greater profit than I've put into it.

[The Atog Lord]

Cockatrice is very hit-or-miss. Last night, I went online and had some very good games against Brian Kelly. Those were great games, and Brian is a very high-quality opponent. Other times, however, Cockatrice is horrible. If you already know the person you'll be facing, then Cockatrice is very good. If you are playing against a random, unknown person, there is a high likelihood that you'll be disappointed.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Cockatrice is very hit-or-miss.

Any game without a ranking or reputation system is.

[Guli]

You have to build up your friends list on Cockatrice. After you have sufficient numbers, you can log in at any time and ask your skilled friends to test match ups.

I haven't played on MTGO that much, but so far I dislike it immensely. The interface is bad and can cause even game loss which is really something unacceptable and demotivating for newcomers.

[MTGFan]

Cockatrice is very hit-or-miss. Last night, I went online and had some very good games against Brian Kelly. Those were great games, and Brian is a very high-quality opponent. Other times, however, Cockatrice is horrible. If you already know the person you'll be facing, then Cockatrice is very good. If you are playing against a random, unknown person, there is a high likelihood that you'll be disappointed.

If you stick solely to eternal formats I've found that the ratio of competent to incompetent opponents is no greater than around 2:1 or so. Brian is definitely one of the better ones, but nearly everyone that plays vintage on Cockatrice regularly is solid with only a few exceptions. (Basically at, near, or even exceeding your level of skill, judging from the many games I've played against you over the years on Cockatrice and MWS). Some of the best players I've ever played have been relatively unknown players on Cockatrice.

The "random scrub" problem is much more of an issue if you delve into Modern / Standard games.

[Shock Wave]

The part that differentiates MTGO and all other options for me is the fact that you have to pay for MTGO, which I feel is a very good thing. It's kind of like the difference between playing Poker with fake chips and real money. There's nothing stopping a player on a free app from being a total douchebag or randomly disconnecting. They may take those actions on MTGO as well, but they'll have to pay for it. If they're playing an eternal format on MTGO, it will cost them $4-6.

Also, on free apps, I've found that I get into infinite rules arguments. Not so, on MTGO. You can't really argue against the rules on MTGO, because the app tells you how things are going to work. That's a really important distinction.

Lastly, as much as the supporters of free apps may try to argue otherwise, the level of competition and play on MTGO is infinitely better. I've played on MWS and Cockatrice for years, and it's really not even close. Encountering a highly skilled opponent on Cockatrice or MWS is an exception, not the norm. On MTGO, most of your opponents will be at least competent if not highly skilled players.

The major advantage to using free apps (aside from not having to pay) is that the actual applications are just better. I have long thought the MWS interface has been the best of them all. Cockatrice is decent too. Aside from that, for me, there really is no incentive to use them.

[MTGFan]

The part that differentiates MTGO and all other options for me is the fact that you have to pay for MTGO, which I feel is a very good thing. It's kind of like the difference between playing Poker with fake chips and real money. There's nothing stopping a player on a free app from being a total douchebag or randomly disconnecting. They may take those actions on MTGO as well, but they'll have to pay for it. If they're playing an eternal format on MTGO, it will cost them $4-6.

Also, on free apps, I've found that I get into infinite rules arguments. Not so, on MTGO. You can't really argue against the rules on MTGO, because the app tells you how things are going to work. That's a really important distinction.

We've had two very different experiences over the years then, because as someone who has solely played Eternal formats on MWS/Cockatrice, I have rarely had to argue rules with my opponents, or at least no more than say, one opponent out of fifty. There seems to be a very intuitive understanding of Magic rules among the eternal set.

Additionally, I've played on MTGO, MWS, and Cockatrice, and  honestly, you run into nearly the same ratio of scrubs:competent players on MTGO as the other two platforms. I've found great players, average players, and mediocre players on all three. The bell shaped curve that represents Magic skill doesn't really need to be normalized to account for the different platforms.

[Onslaught]

If Magic Online was playable on an iPad with an interface comparable to Hearthstone, I'd be willing to pay paper Magic prices for Vintage cards. Hearthstone is a pretty bad game, but the interface is superbly polished.

I think someone on here put it best by describing MTGO as something that looks like it was installed off AOL floppy disks.

[Shock Wave]

The part that differentiates MTGO and all other options for me is the fact that you have to pay for MTGO, which I feel is a very good thing. It's kind of like the difference between playing Poker with fake chips and real money. There's nothing stopping a player on a free app from being a total douchebag or randomly disconnecting. They may take those actions on MTGO as well, but they'll have to pay for it. If they're playing an eternal format on MTGO, it will cost them $4-6.

Also, on free apps, I've found that I get into infinite rules arguments. Not so, on MTGO. You can't really argue against the rules on MTGO, because the app tells you how things are going to work. That's a really important distinction.

We've had two very different experiences over the years then, because as someone who has solely played Eternal formats on MWS/Cockatrice, I have rarely had to argue rules with my opponents, or at least no more than say, one opponent out of fifty. There seems to be a very intuitive understanding of Magic rules among the eternal set.

Additionally, I've played on MTGO, MWS, and Cockatrice, and  honestly, you run into nearly the same ratio of scrubs:competent players on MTGO as the other two platforms. I've found great players, average players, and mediocre players on all three. The bell shaped curve that represents Magic skill doesn't really need to be normalized to account for the different platforms.

Well, aside from yourself and AmbivalentDuck, I've never really heard of anyone defending the player pool on MWS/Cockatrice. On the other hand, I personally know at least 10 people who acknowledge that the player pools are generally very poor.

You could actually measure this by playing 100 random matches on MTGO vs Cockatrice/MWS, but I assure you it would be pointless. It's really not even close, and I'm surprised that anyone is actually trying to defend that claim.

Anyways, if you like Cockatrice/MWS, all the power to you. I definitely don't miss either and would never go back, as much as I would love to encounter Sephiroth or another one of those MWS champions.

[MoonDark]

Atog,

I totally agree with you on the interface thing. It's horrible, actually MTGO is one of the hugest UI failures I've seen when we talk about Game UI (which is not a trivial UI field). I guess the amount of players is just a reflection of how much people love MTG. Clearly that's not good enough for me. We should really have a decent piece of software and by that I mean:

1. An consistent UI
2. A cross platform client

Both of which are not rocket science, the first one is harder than the second one... but I just can't believe how little has Wizards actually learned from ALL the previous versions of MTGO.

I'm not a Ph.D in HCI, but I'm a Software Engineer with 5 Startups on my Back ans a MS Equivalent Degree... so I totally hear you. My guess is that if Wizards doesn't start to take the next version of MTGO seriously they are exposing themselves to other games like Heartstone (which is really well done). Today you just can't ignore mobile, everything is going there...

Wizards needs to step up on their game, build real permanent strong teams that can actually learn and build on top of previous failure... I smell tons of low quality contract work in v4 (and all the previous versions).

Cheers.

[MTGFan]

The part that differentiates MTGO and all other options for me is the fact that you have to pay for MTGO, which I feel is a very good thing. It's kind of like the difference between playing Poker with fake chips and real money. There's nothing stopping a player on a free app from being a total douchebag or randomly disconnecting. They may take those actions on MTGO as well, but they'll have to pay for it. If they're playing an eternal format on MTGO, it will cost them $4-6.

Also, on free apps, I've found that I get into infinite rules arguments. Not so, on MTGO. You can't really argue against the rules on MTGO, because the app tells you how things are going to work. That's a really important distinction.

We've had two very different experiences over the years then, because as someone who has solely played Eternal formats on MWS/Cockatrice, I have rarely had to argue rules with my opponents, or at least no more than say, one opponent out of fifty. There seems to be a very intuitive understanding of Magic rules among the eternal set.

Additionally, I've played on MTGO, MWS, and Cockatrice, and  honestly, you run into nearly the same ratio of scrubs:competent players on MTGO as the other two platforms. I've found great players, average players, and mediocre players on all three. The bell shaped curve that represents Magic skill doesn't really need to be normalized to account for the different platforms.

Well, aside from yourself and AmbivalentDuck, I've never really heard of anyone defending the player pool on MWS/Cockatrice. On the other hand, I personally know at least 10 people who acknowledge that the player pools are generally very poor.

You could actually measure this by playing 100 random matches on MTGO vs Cockatrice/MWS, but I assure you it would be pointless. It's really not even close, and I'm surprised that anyone is actually trying to defend that claim.

Anyways, if you like Cockatrice/MWS, all the power to you. I definitely don't miss either and would never go back, as much as I would love to encounter Sephiroth or another one of those MWS champions.

I've played 100+ random matches (probably close to 500+ on each) on MTGO, Cockatrice, and MWS over the past 3 years and while I haven't played Vintage on MTGO yet, I have played every other format, and I can say without hesitation that there are scrubs, average players, and expert players on each platform. The distribution is pretty similar as well. Paying for cards doesn't prevent mediocre players from showing up as MTGO opponents, and being free doesn't prevent expert players from playtesting on Cockatrice/MWS.

[Smmenen]

Paying for cards doesn't prevent mediocre players from showing up as MTGO opponents

Disagree to a certain extent.  The two man queues, where players are paying to play, has a much higher caliber than the open play.  I find good opponents their regularly.  Players may not be A-1, but their decks are tighter in constructed and superior in play. 

[Shock Wave]

I've played 100+ random matches (probably close to 500+ on each) on MTGO, Cockatrice, and MWS over the past 3 years and while I haven't played Vintage on MTGO yet, I have played every other format, and I can say without hesitation that there are scrubs, average players, and expert players on each platform. The distribution is pretty similar as well. Paying for cards doesn't prevent mediocre players from showing up as MTGO opponents, and being free doesn't prevent expert players from playtesting on Cockatrice/MWS.

Yep, I definitely agree that there are players of varying ability on all platforms. Where we disagree is on the distribution of said ability. In my experiences, MTGO is something like:

50% - Average
30% - High
20% - Poor

... whereas Cocktrice/MWS is more like:

60% - Poor
20% - High
20% - Average

I get it --- your experiences are much different. I don't think there is much more to elaborate on the subject.

[Samoht]

Paying for cards doesn't prevent mediocre players from showing up as MTGO opponents

Disagree to a certain extent.  The two man queues, where players are paying to play, has a much higher caliber than the open play.  I find good opponents their regularly.  Players may not be A-1, but their decks are tighter in constructed and superior in play.  

A.-1. is unique type of player. That's the kind of player gets you to play Trygon Predator into an empty board holding REB and Fluster so they can Show and Tell in Griselbrand!

[Meddling Mike]

Just heaping on more anecdotal experience, I've played hundreds of games on MTGO and MWS/Cockatrice/Apprentice and was a regular contributor to the MWS/Apprentice Horror Stories threads from back in the day. My views of the two platforms is more in line with Shockwave's figures. I also think it logically follows that a paid structure would lead to a better level of competition. A complete noob or a troll wouldn't think twice about throwing together their 15 Lotus, 15 Channel, 15 Fireball, 15 mountain deck and arguing with you that it's completely legal or rage quitting when you counter it with Force of Will. That all changes when you have to pay for the program, the cards needed, the tournament entry and the program ensures that the deck is legal for the format and dictates all rules interactions. Typically, for people to make that kind of investment into their digital collections they are looking to get some sort of return through prizes and they at least believe themselves skilled enough to do so.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Typically, for people to make that kind of investment into their digital collections they are looking to get some sort of return through prizes and they at least believe themselves skilled enough to do so.

And what's sort of fascinating about that is that it presumes arrogance. Ie. Most of the players have to overestimate their odds of winning, perhaps grossly, to facilitate a stream of positive expected value opportunities for a very few.

[MTGFan]

The problem with Shockwave and Meddling Mike is that you are allowing a few outliers to color your impression of the entire player base.

Of course there are idiots on Cockatrice/MWS that play 4 Black Lotus 4 Channel decks or try to play unpowered Kithkin in a room marked "Vintage 2/3 sb", but these are easily identified and kicked from games. It literally takes less than a minute to identify someone like this and kick them, and then never have to play them.

And conversely, when you find someone with a high level of skill, it takes less than a minute to ask them "Do you want to play again some time? I'll add you to my Buddy List". And then you can play more matches vs. them when they are on, and often Vintage/Legacy players will be more receptive to playing several matches in a row.

I also think that the pay-for-play structure of MTGO and higher barrier to entry for Vintage specifically *lessens* the tightness of the deck lists. Not everyone who is skilled at this game will have the funds or the desire to drop $1000+ on digital Power. Some of those players might try to play on MTGO with less than optimal Vintage decks when on MWS/Cockatrice they would be able to construct the deck exactly to their liking in the most optimized way.

In fact, just the other night I was watching SmallTownMagic's (G0ogle on MTGO) Vintage stream and he ended up playing against a Mono Red Burn deck in a Daily Event. Not exactly high caliber decks or opponents in those dailies all the time. Additionally, the matches that I have watched recently streamed on twitch have featured numerous players who are average at best in terms of skill level, both among the streamers and the opponents. The only really high caliber play I've seen in the few Vintage dailies I've watched, so far, came from LSV, Montolio, and Reynad.