Combo Detection
TappedOut forum
Posted on Dec. 20, 2013, 3:08 p.m. by yeaGO
Hey all,
You will now notice some additional features surrounding MTG combos.
1) Mentioning combos such as Channel + Fireball (that's bracket bracket channel plus fireball bracket bracket) will now aggregate discussion on the new combo pages
2) Mentioning combos and key synergies in your deck descriptions will provide YET ANOTHER place for your deck to cycle to. This uses the above syntax.
Enjoy.
Femme_Fatale says... #3
You are confusing cards and combos nbarry223. We don't want to be categorizing individual cards, only combos. Users can find individual cards themselves if they want as what is required could easily be listed in a description of the hub. And we would want a separate combo tab, for easier navigation.
February 5, 2014 2:39 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #4
I think we're still getting wrapped up in this distinction between combos and synergies. I'm going to push for a removal of the debate from the final product because it really doesn't help us achieve what we're aiming to achieve here.
@Femme_Fatale: That's kind of along my line of thinking, but I don't think we should necessarily label anything "joint combo." I think it's enough to list the combo, then have an automatic system to populate a list of expanded combos that include that combo.
Even this is kind of dangerous because we must then decide how far we go with listing expanded combos. Do we list all the possible additions to the base Sword of the Meek + Thopter Foundry combo? Do we suggest a broad category of cards or combos that work well in conjunction? I think it's pretty obvious that in the extreme cases (e.g. infinite mana combos), we don't want to list all the possible additions because it would be nighmarishly arduous and just wasteful of time.
@nbarry223: I don't really see how that's an implementation of your system. That sounds, for the most part, like the hub system I proposed earlier.
I want to eliminate the inane entries like Storm Crow + Island because they're useless as "combos" and shouldn't be considered in discussions like this. Also, I think it's unnecessary to tag the individual cards at this point. We should focus on implementing hubs solely at the combo level because the project will be much narrower in scope.
The less work for us right now, the better. We can't overload the project with tons of different goals and ideas and still expect it to get off the ground in any reasonable time frame or with any reasonable degree of functionality.
February 5, 2014 2:40 a.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #5
For example:
Combo type: (Infinite), (Mana)
Description: Generally best with any (X) spell or ability to complete the combo.
This way users who find a card they want to abuse can look up combos that compliment them in the combase.
February 5, 2014 2:42 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #6
@Dorotheus: I want to avoid super general combos like [deathtouch enabler + ping effect]. They're unnecessary and take up a lot of time and effort to list. It should be fairly obvious to most players that deathtouch effects work nicely with direct damage effects; that shouldn't be something we exhaustively explore in a combo database like this one.
February 5, 2014 2:42 a.m.
I was mostly using that as an example to ask the question for on what term/basis would that type of combo be listed as.
It was just the first example that came to my head.
February 5, 2014 3:45 a.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #9
I've been called, cool... takes out needle and pops ego before it inflates too much
I think that hubs should serve two purposes:
- define certain qualities of the combo, like (infinite), (loop), (mono-colored), etc
- define what the combo gives you, (tokens), (damage), (removal), (sacrificables), (buff), (life) and so on.
Those two hub types could be distinguished by colors, maybe?
A combo that gives infinite sacrifices like Glen Elendra Archmage + Mikaeus, the Unhallowed should not be listed with every single sacrifice outlet available, and not with everything that outlet produces. The fact that it provides sacrifices implies the use of different sacrifice outlets in a deck using the combo. There's also no point inlistin it separately for every card that it triggers repeatedly, although those trigger opportunities can and should be mentioned in the description.
The "joint combo" is a great Idea. if the common basic element is listed as combo, it maybe could be done automatically. Just having two shared cards would definitely need a human to decide if the shared cards are the core element of the combo or just unrelated overlap.
I'd like to draw attention to the use of variables again, allowing terms like "sacrifice outlet" or "etb-effect creature" inside the combo definition. [ [ mikaeus, the unhallowed + persist creature + sacrifice outlet ] ] would cover so many variations of that combo. Of course variables would only be recognized if they have been added. A lot of variables could be covered by recognizing a keyword and a card type as a variable, like "graft creature".
February 5, 2014 4:23 a.m.
smash10101 says... #10
@Epochalyptik, RE Pinging deathtoucher
I agree that ping + deathtouch does not warrant inclusion, but I do think the addition of Thornbite Staff is a creature lock, though a weak one, since hexproof/shroud and indestructible get around it.
As for the format of the combo page, here is my idea:
MTG Combo
Combo: CARD1 + CARD2 (use tags to link the cards, not the combo)Type: Type1, Type2Description: Short description of how the combo works, as well as what could be added to make it better, like Fireball for infinite mana.Related Combos: A list of combos that either include all of the cards in the tagged combo, or all but one, if the combo is 3+ cards. THis would be added automatically by the system.
Example:
MTG Combo
Combo: Ashnod's Altar + Sword of the Meek + Thopter Foundry
Type: Infinite, Mana, Lifegain, Creature Tokens, Creature ETB, Creature Sac, Artifact, ETB, Artifact Sac
Description:
- Pay 1 and sac Sword of the Meek to Thopter Foundry , creating 1/1 blue Thopter artifact creature token and gaining 1 life. Trigger's Sword of the Meek 's third ability.
- Sac the Thopter to Ashnod's Altar for 2 mana.
- Repeat steps 1 and 2 for infinite mana and life. Skip step two every 3rd time to make infinite Thopters as well.
Related Combos: Sword of the Meek + Thopter Foundry , Phyrexian Altar + Sword of the Meek + Thopter Foundry , Krark-Clan Ironworks + Sword of the Meek + Thopter Foundry
February 5, 2014 4:28 a.m.
That's exactly what I'm saying. There are certain combos (mostly sacrifice and ones involving bounce) that have almost an infinite amount of variations. If they are all implemented, eventually the entire category will be filled with them, making it almost useless. That's why I said there needed to be a way to tag that certain category, and just have it list every card in the category when you click it. It would stop the repetitive nature of certain combos.
If my understanding is correct, you need to go through and categorize the combos manually anyway. Wouldn't it be the same amount of work (once the backend programming is done) to move certain cards in the combo to said categories instead of moving the entire combo.
I'm only talking about labeling individual cards when there are a lot of interchangeable ones within said combos. I think you guys believe I am talking about doing the entire system backwards, which I'm not. The more straight forward combos can be done how everyone is suggesting, because there shouldn't be nth iterations of the same combo.
nbarry223 says... #1
I understand what you're saying, but I am not suggesting we list every card.
I'm saying that ones used in combos are listed in the hub, and when you click on them it goes to the cards page, where you can see all the combos it is used in (as it is now).
Basically, all that would have to be done is the cards are categorized as combos are listed. It would be the same as submitting cards, except you're submitting categories for cards you use in your combos (if you wanted the combos to be searchable like that). Either way you have to go through and categorize the combos or cards, I just feel it would be more user friendly, and less cluttered.
If you think about how many 3 card combinations you can make with 6 cards that go together (6x5x4) 120 combinations, it shows that if you truly want to allow synergies in, you need this type of system.
It's just a suggestion though, you can do what you want.
February 5, 2014 2:34 a.m.