Ideas for new hubs
TappedOut forum
Posted on June 12, 2013, 4:12 p.m. by 203995014
Sometimes, I try to add a hub and then find that it doesn't exist. Personally, I think the hubs I tried that don't exist would be good hubs although if I'm missing the point of hubs, please tell me.
Hubs I think should be added:
12-post
Eldrazi (this one is kind of iffy)
U/R storm should just be Storm
Show and Tell (is there a general name for the decks that use Show and Tell as a combo piece?)
Thnx
There's also OmniShow and a couple of others that I don't remember
June 12, 2013 4:28 p.m.
I would like to suggest EDH/Commander to the list of 'browse by hubs' also.
June 12, 2013 4:44 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #8
EDH/Commander is already a format listing. It doesn't also need to be a hub.
June 12, 2013 5:43 p.m.
Epochalyptik edh/commander is not in my format listing so I don't get to see it in the bar. Sometimes I just want to browse hubs. Finally, most of the format listings already are in 'browse by hub', so I don't see how it should be exclusive.
June 12, 2013 5:46 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #10
@gufymike: I don't really know what you mean by your first sentence, but I still don't think it's worth including formats as hubs. They exist as formats because that's an effective categorization tool, and the advanced search in the deck builder allows you to filter results by both hub and format. Introducing a new hub for every format when a system already exists to handle them is kind of a waste.
I added the 12-Post, Eldrazi, and Show and Tell hubs. U/R Storm has been changed to Storm.
June 12, 2013 5:55 p.m.
Epochalyptik what I mean is that it's easier for me to click 'deck builder', drop down 'browse by hub' and select 'edh/commander', just like I could 'esper', 'boros'. etc... That this is a more easier and intuitive way. 'Search by format' is out of the way and if I can just type 'edg' in the deck search, it's not intuitive. advanced search is a few extra clicks away to get what I want also, which is not what I want most of the time.
June 12, 2013 6:02 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
The few extra clicks are really not a big deal, in my opinion. It would be more confusing and unnecessary to add a hub for something that's already a format, especially considering many people will be forced to choose either redundancy over a sixth relevant hub or risk not having their deck appear in the format hub.
Counting every step, including menus and the actual search button, you can go from the home page to a search of all EDH-format decks in only four clicks.
June 12, 2013 7:30 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #14
Ah, I also have an idea: mtgtop8.com has a list of all the popular competitive archetypes in legacy, vintage, standard, modern, block, commander, etc.
Maybe it would be useful taking a look there to get useful hubs.
June 12, 2013 7:46 p.m.
I now just don't understand how the combo box or query needs to know the difference between hub and format. That systematically they remain two different things to the browse system one thing. I do get it in the db/system they are two different things but to us users its just another sorting charaistic . I get it it's not designed this way, but I do think browsing formats should be easier and more intuitive fundamentally. Especially with folks deciding what formats they want to play, build decks for and play more than type.
June 12, 2013 7:50 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #16
I don't really know what you want. The advanced search puts at your fingertips every deck in our database. You can search by hub, format, name, color, card, anything.
I cannot fathom how you feel the separation is unnecessary or even less necessary than a mess of formats and descriptors.
June 12, 2013 7:55 p.m.
Is there a way to separate netdecks from decks that aren't netdecks (both searching and browsing?)
June 12, 2013 8:07 p.m.
BTW, the advanced search isn't working correctly unless I'm using it wrong.
June 12, 2013 8:10 p.m.
Ill get back to this when I'm at a keyboard and off my phone.
June 12, 2013 8:16 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #22
@Chubbub: 12-post is a deck variant that uses the locus lands (Glimmerpost , Cloudpost ) and Vesuva (which copies Cloudpost for ramp). It's similar to Urzatron decks in that it uses land synergies to increase mana production.
June 12, 2013 8:23 p.m.
MTG_Player says... #24
on a similiar note: can the netdeck / competitive hub be seperated? Just because a deck is competitive does not mean it was copied from online. Oh and a budget-less hub or a way to indicate budget would be very helpful, for those attempting to critique the deck and for the creator.
June 12, 2013 8:37 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #25
Netdecking happens almost exclusively in competitive environments, which is, I think, how the hub started. I don't think it implies that competitive decks are netdecks. Regardless, I gave each half its own listing.
I'm not sold on the idea of a "budgetless" hub, though. I don't know if it's actually necessary to use a hub to demonstrate that you have no budget. "Budget" is a hub because it tends to be a defining aspect of a deck or the approach to building a deck.
June 12, 2013 8:43 p.m.
So, this is a cyclical problem. When I first started helping as admin here at tappedout it was to clean up deck tags. Originally people could tag whatever's they wanted. So I went in and combined goblin and goblins and goblin tribal and hobby gob gob etc. into one category. As the site grew larger, I could not keep up. People literally created them faster than I could condense them. They grew into the thousands with many just being troll tags.
Yeago then instated the hubs idea. It worked great, but had to be updated, so people emailed me with things and I added them unless they were obviously troll or redundant. The problem became that not everyone agrees on what the archetypes are and every has a different meta and different styles. Eventually this needed trimming too. Someone else at the time took it over, then it became a burden and it was severely trimmed.
Now here we are, and back to wanting to add. The real problem with the hubs is that the variety of metadata that people want added to a deck is so vast that it may be very difficult to capture.
June 12, 2013 8:49 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #27
I'm personally a fan of simplification. I think we could get along with a hub for each color permutation, archetype, major/popular tribe, and perhaps a few extras. Right now, we have both "Irindu (G/U/R)" and "R/U/G" and we also have hubs like "R/X Aggro" and "U/W/X Stoneblade," which are basically just combinations of color and archetype hubs. We could eliminate those combination hubs and streamline everything. I'd probably have already done it if I had permissions to delete hubs.
June 12, 2013 9:02 p.m.
12 post is a set of lands where you have 4 of Cloudpost , 4 of Glimmerpost , and 4 of Vesuva .
June 12, 2013 9:42 p.m.
You can add EDH to your favorite formats and it will appear on the deck builder page. One click :)
June 12, 2013 10:08 p.m.
Personally, I think that color combinations and deck types should be separate. For example, U/W/X Stoneblade would just be called stoneblade. I think making it less specific would work better because there are multiple types of decks out there of each category such as B/G storm which the storm hub used to be U/R storm and therefore decks would fit into some hubs. The theoretical B/G stoneblade would be able to fit in the "stoneblade" hub while it wouldn't work in "U/W/X Stoneblade"
(Yes, I know that U/W/X Stoneblade is supposed to be exclusively U/W/X)
June 12, 2013 10:51 p.m.
yeaGO! doing that has a few issues involved. 1. adding many to that list makes that nav bar grow and look like someone's i.e. window, where it's all toolbars and very little view space and you're lost for a few minutes looking for the one you want. 2. While it can be done, it's not for the lazy types that just want to click and go with no setup (or even logging in). which leads to (most important) non-registered users visiting can not browse by format easily.
I think browsing by format should be done because a lot of players are looking for 'modern' or 'edh/commander' decks vs modern storm, modern faries, birthing pod, etc... A lot are just entering the formats and do not have a clue of the various types of decks available. So they just want to look at them all and decide on what to play based on the format. This is aimed at unregistered users looking at the various sites trying to figure things out. I do point at Modern Masters as part of the motivation behind this (the other part is I find myself just wanting to select 'format type' from the 'browse by' combo box and I don't care about the specific type of deck).
Personally as an existing user, I just want to click and go right there, ideally I think the large format deck listing (1), should have it's format clickable in addition to the 'browse by hubs' to have the selection: 'Format: edh/commander,legacy, modern, standard, vintage' so that it's just 100% easier, especially with the word completion already implemented in that widget.
There are existing methods to do the same but they are not easy or intuitive. And defining intuitive as 'See, click, go' not 'Search, click, go'. Taking out the extra steps that are easy to some, is a pain to others, especially if they are new and/or non registered users. Only intuitive if you spend your whole free time on similar websites and internet. I think easy should be defined as: 'If a 7 year old who doesn't use the internet or computer often can do it without asking, it's easy'.
I also agree 203995014 on the type should ignore colors.
(1). example:
1 million ways to die, choose one
June 13, 2013 10:47 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #32
@gufymike: I think there's a tangible limit to how much laziness we can accommodate without needlessly complicating the system. And non-registered users can still use advanced search, I believe.
I do agree that including a "browse by format" option on the deck builder page is simple and easy enough.
June 13, 2013 11:09 a.m.
Epochalyptik in my experience, accommodating the lazy usually simplifies the system. (I work with an extremely lazy boss who pushes for these kinds of changes all the time and they do simplify and cut down development time). But I'm not going to push it anymore, said my peace.
gufymike says... #2
Sneak and Show is a common legacy deck that uses Sneak Attack and Show and Tell as the combo pieces.
June 12, 2013 4:21 p.m.