Feature Request?
TappedOut forum
Posted on Feb. 27, 2014, 3:20 p.m. by m4ver1k
Is there a place to submit feature requests?
I'm not sure how hard it would be, but to modify the casting cost or colors used to cast for a card on a per card, per deck basis?
So for example, I could say in a Vampire deck, alter Gatekeeper of Malakir to just have a casting cost of BBB. And in a storm deck, alter the casting cost of Manamorphose to just be 1R? And in the cast of Manamorphose set that to be what's used in graphs so the green section isn't so misleading?
It's mostly so you can tailor a more accurate reading of the Avg CMC, but I really like that average.
I'm very sure that's asking a lot, but I figured I might as well put it out there.
Also, possibly a way to correlate a timezone to a profile so that the timestamps are translated to your timezone?
February 27, 2014 3:28 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #4
Seems a little unnecessary; currently, the system pulls card data from, unsurprisingly, the card database. Offering customization like this would pose some problems, and it doesn't really seem to do much.
February 27, 2014 4:21 p.m.
Eh. I realized that it's a bit much to ask for, I just get tired of substituting different cards in the intended slots so I get try to get the most accurate readings. But I figured there's no harm in at least asking.
The timestamp thing seems like it'd be pretty easy to do though if it's just in a database, even more so if you let Javascript handle it so that the extra translation effort was passed on to the client.
February 27, 2014 4:25 p.m.
Seems like a good idea to me. It frustrates me that dredges average cmc isn't 0 :P.
February 27, 2014 4:26 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #7
But what about those times where your opponent has an empty board, is at 2 life, and has no cards in hand? You're not going to pay BBB for Gatekeeper in that situation because it would be silly.
That's an outside, extreme example, but there are going to be plenty of times you want a creature but don't need an Edict effect. You're better off leaving it as-is and understanding that the numbers it gives aren't always super perfect.
Making decks strictly by the numbers is generally a bad practice, anyways.
Intuition > Math.
February 27, 2014 4:34 p.m.
Cobthecobbler says... #8
The asian-part of the MTG community might disagree with that last statement lol
February 27, 2014 4:38 p.m.
NobodyPicksBulbasaur says... #9
Math MtG can be useful for figuring out why your deck really sucks when it looks like it should be good. Sometimes your mana is all wrong and math can help you fix it.
It's pretty bad at figuring out which spells to play, though, because so many other factors are simply better judges of a card's power level in a deck.
Nobody ever pulled a Dark Confidant out of their deck because their 3-drop spot needed more meat. "Damn, I really wish I could run Bob, but I really need more 3-drops" is not a common phrase.
February 27, 2014 4:41 p.m.
@NPB: If that's the scenario I'm probably not casting Gatekeeper anyways. At any rate, I'm looking for the most common scenario & casting cost. Dredge could benefit. Spells with 'X' in the cost could benefit, especially like with Blaze , Red Sun's Zenith , or Sphinx's Revelation , where it greatly skews the mana cost down to far fewer than it would otherwise be cast for.
yeaGO says... #2
yeah. here. sup?
February 27, 2014 3:22 p.m.