Multiverse Feedback

Multiverse Feedback by Alex

259 cards in Multiverse

152 with no rarity, 96 commons, 3 uncommons,
2 rares, 6 mythics

1 colourless green, 35 white, 59 blue, 2 black, 38 red,
84 green, 1 multicolour, 3 hybrid, 34 artifact, 2 land

894 comments total

Report bugs and discuss ideas for new features here

Multiverse Feedback: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics | Upcoming releases | Skeleton

This is not a conventional set of cards. Instead this is where to track bugs and upcoming features in Multiverse.

If you want to report a bug or suggest a feature, click New card above!

You can use the colour/frame of the "card" to indicate what type of issue you're creating:

Please comment on suggestions if they matter to you. If you see a proposal that you like, add a comment saying you want it. Alex is far more likely to add a feature if lots of people want it!

Cardset comments (10) | Add a comment on this cardset

The set creator would like to draw your attention to these comments:

On Version Control (reply):

Mmm. Yeah, this is a sensible topic to raise. Back when I was on a free database, I was confident I wouldn't have space for previous revisions. However now that I'm paying for the database, we've got a good amount of space, so storing previous revisions is a fairly plausible enhancement.

It wouldn't be insanely difficult, but it would be a moderate amount of work; however it's a very sensible thing to ask for. No promises, but I'll look into it further.

On Bugs importing from CSV (reply):

In theory I could directly import MSE files rather than making people have to export. I'm getting a bit more time in the evenings now than I was a couple of months ago so I could have a go at that myself. I've got a good sample MSE set I can be using.

Recently active cards: (all recent activity)

 
If you try moving a card that has a skeleton card code assigned, and that code is already used up in the new set, you get an error message. However, all information for the skeleton row supposedly preoccupied are those of the set you are moving the card out of instead of giving you even the possibility of directly looking at the other set's skeleton to see what code you can assign to it.
2 comments
last 2016-07-08 11:48:36 by Circeus
 M 
 
Option to hide mechanic parameters in name.
5 comments
last 2016-07-08 08:40:50 by Alex
 
Having the opportunity to tag cards for red flag and then quickly look into what percentage of the cards are red-flagged would be really cool for building common cards in sets.
4 comments
last 2016-05-06 14:13:18 by Alex
 
We are currently working on the revival of Archester, alternating between MTGsalvation and this site but we are coming to the problem that every time Moon-E disappears, we lose the possibility to update here.
Could we get a way implemented to add multiple set administrators without allowing randos from screwing everything up?
1 comment
2016-05-06 14:11:40 by Alex
 
Could it be possible to at the very list make it possible to refresh the cardlist display (i.e. to take edit/moves into account) without the display options resetting?
2 comments
last 2016-04-30 22:21:21 by Alex

Recent comments: (all recent activity)
On forbidden card move has unhelpful error:

Well, just showing the skeleton row which prevents the move would be very helpful. It wouldn't be half as annoying if edit and move was a possibility. As is, you have to go check for an available card code/delete the code, save the card, then repeat the move, which is frustrating when it happens repeatedly.

I think you should be able to have multiple cards with the same code if there is no skeleton. I'm not sure what is best to do once the skeleton happens. Maybe put an error message in the skeleton instead of a card link?

On forbidden card move has unhelpful error:

Mmm. Interesting. I wonder whether I should go back to allowing duplicate card codes in any given set, in fact.

On Hide mechanic parameters:

No, the feature suggestion is right. At the moment if you specified "join \1 together" as the expansion of the keyword "combine" or anything, and then wrote a card saying "Target player may [combine three target creatures]", you'd like that to expand to "Target player may join three target creatures together", but at the moment it wouldn't - it'd go wrong and expand to say "Target player may join three target creatures together three target creatures".

On Hide mechanic parameters:

Sorry if i'm not understanding this right, but couldn't you just not use the same name for both names?

On Hide mechanic parameters:

"you could easily make a separate mechanic for each version you'd need."

No you can't. That tedious workaround. doesn't work for a lot of ideas.

On Hide mechanic parameters:

Would be useful for things like cycling.

In the meantime, though, you could easily make a separate mechanic for each version you'd need.

On Hide mechanic parameters:

Two parts.

  1. If parameters like \1 is part of a mechanic's name, do not show the remaining parameters after the name.

Example: Keyword "join" takes 1 parameter. The desired name is "join \1 together". However the final text on the card becomes "join \1 together \1" because the second \1 is added automatically.

So don't automatically add the second \1 since we already have that parameter in its name. Ditto if keyword takes two parameters and one or both parameters are already specified in the name. In fact, this may also resolve keywords like typecycling.

  1. If backward compatibility is a concern, then the above could be optional with a checkbox: "Don't show parameters after name."
On Red flagging option:

Hmm. Sensible suggestion. Not sure what UI would make sense...

As a workaround for now, if you're not using the "unaddressed"/"todo" feature then you could use those, which get highlighted in red but only to cardset admins.

On Selective cardset administrator:

I'm afraid this has been a long-standing request, Multiple cardset admins, and I've had very little time/energy for creative projects for years. I do appreciate it'd make the set a lot more usable, but I'm afraid there's not much prospect of this happening any time soon :(

However, people on this site are generally fairly respectful of cardsets, even "blue" editable-by-all ones. I think it'd probably be fine to set it editable by all signed-in users and have a Front Page and/or cardset comment saying "Please only make edits that are approved by [whatever group/forum]". I don't think Multiverse is very prone to "randos screwing everything up".

On Red flagging option:

Also, not to take away from a good suggestion, but I often just make a comment to myself and highlight it. I will say, though, that all these highlighted comments sure look messy on the set's front page.

(All recent activity)
See other cardsets