Hey [color=blue]@Sebi[/color], don't know if you're pursuing the flag-based solution or not, since we haven't heard from you in a minute, but if you are..... An off-topic but related request for proxy support keeps being bumped in this thread. As I express in more detail in my reply to that thread, I think the best solution for marking cards as proxies would also be via foil-like flags. So if you're already pursuing foil-etched flags, thought I may as well bring proxies to your attention, so you can kill two birds with one sto–, er, overhaul to the flag system.

I think sebi is MIA currently, no update since april =(

Sadly we are missing the new secret lair and more

Shazou wrote:I think sebi is MIA currently, no update since april =(

Sadly we are missing the new secret lair and more

Still here, just not vocal :D.

Working on some infrastructure updates, bringing the backend framework updated to current-day versions. Db updates and other info was waiting for this stuff, which as usual way exceeded the initial estimation :).

Regarding the flags meldon44, I'm currently leaning in favor of what scryfall is doing, making the collector numbers strings instead of integers and adding those printings in parallel. I think that might be the cleanest way...

I don't envy you Sebi. Has the DB at least behaved through the upgrades? Many a weekend have I spent babying a DB that decided to throw tantrums....

meldon44 wrote:Hey [color=blue]@Sebi[/color], don't know if you're pursuing the flag-based solution or not, since we haven't heard from you in a minute, but if you are..... An off-topic but related request for proxy support keeps being bumped in this thread. As I express in more detail in my reply to that thread, I think the best solution for marking cards as proxies would also be via foil-like flags. So if you're already pursuing foil-etched flags, thought I may as well bring proxies to your attention, so you can kill two birds with one sto–, er, overhaul to the flag system.

Meldon, I have always used the altered flag for proxies... Although the only ones I currently proxy are some duel lands I suppose it's easier for me to keep track then it might be for some people.

sebi wrote:Regarding the flags meldon44, I'm currently leaning in favor of what scryfall is doing, making the collector numbers strings instead of integers and adding those printings in parallel. I think that might be the cleanest way...

As I said before, that will get the job done, since it will allow for differentiation on a CSV.

My main concern is still with ease of identification when scanning lists of cards (whether in trades or one's own inventory). Most other card identifiers are easier to identify at a glance. Language, condition, foiling, and edition all have identifiable icons. The closest parallel are cards with variant artwork in the same set -- there's no way to tell them apart just by glancing at the table row; you have to hover to see the card image. However, it's worse with the etched variant, because the artwork is the same. We will have to hover over the edition icon in order to see the collector number, and then you'll "just have to know" that the little appended e means etched.

So. I shall be the etched flag flag-bearer till the bitter end. ;-)

To be clear, I'm actually very happy to hear you proposing to change collector numbers to strings, as that could fix the other bugs I've mentioned (BFZ basics, Tahngarth). It's a good solution to implement. I just don't think that happens to be the best solution in the case of etched foils.

If you do indeed go with unique collector numbers a la Scryfall rather than flags, might I make a UI request? Could you add Collector Number as an additional optional column for card listings? Then at least I could see the collector number when scanning, and won't have to waste time hovering.

RDPARTY wrote:Meldon, I have always used the altered flag for proxies... Although the only ones I currently proxy are some duel lands I suppose it's easier for me to keep track then it might be for some people.

Agreed. There's definitely "solutions" within the current system to represent proxies, at least to your own eyes. Just do what works for you. Like, I have actual alters, so I can't use that flag... but I could just use "textless" or "artist proof".

However, those types of hacks have a couple drawbacks. The main one pointed out in the thread I linked to is that the cards are still included in the inventory's valuation. If my real cards are worth $5k (at least per Deckbox), but I proxy a full set of duals, some Cradles, a Mox Diamond.... it shouldn't suddenly say my inventory is worth $20k or whatever. Sure, you can filter out whatever flag it is you used to represent proxies, then view Total Set Value for the filtered listing.... but that's just hacky.

A second concern is with universal recognizability when it comes to those "anything in my inventory is available to trade, just ask" type posts. Without an actual proxy identifier, people will think your Taiga with an altered flag is just that -- an altered Taiga -- and propose a trade for it, wasting both their time and yours. "But meldon," you say, "it's as simple as explaining it in your profile or post." Well, nothing is as simple as it should be when it comes to real-life interactions with human beings. People don't read. People will misunderstand. You'll forget to add it to your post. And so on. Can it work? Sure. But is it the most ideal UX? No.

I don't have any personal investment in the discussion, as I don't see any point in listing proxies in my inventory. But for the overall betterment of the site, I would propose a dedicated proxy flag that hooks into the pricing as the ideal solution. And since Sebi might have been looking into flags anyways, just thought it was a good opportunity to bring it up.

meldon44 wrote:My main concern is still with ease of identification when scanning lists of cards (whether in trades or one's own inventory). Most other card identifiers are easier to identify at a glance.

You are right, this might be a considerable issue. I'm just still apprehensive a bit about adding another user-settable flag for those (not completely sure why... just feels a bit not right). I feel it might lead to people just misusing the flag, marking stuff etched foil when the card does not have such a printing, then adding it to trades, etc...

Regarding proxies, that one is easier, it does indeed need a flag, and special handling for pricing calculation. On the list.

RDPARTY wrote:I don't envy you Sebi. Has the DB at least behaved through the upgrades? Many a weekend have I spent babying a DB that decided to throw tantrums....

Not sure, I did not yet deploy the changes on live. :D

I'll make a post in announcements when I'm sure about the deploy.

Just another issue I have with the user-settable etched flag: pricing will need significant work for that to work. Right now the normal foil is the only "special case" there, and adding a second "special case" is going to be a non-trivial amount of work.

I'm still leaning towards having them as separate printings (as they are in real life) somehow. Perhaps a separate edition that has a distinct edition icon is still the cleanest way to go, despite the explosion in editions...

It's clear by now that wizards is not stopping the explosion of special "editions" they produce, quite the contrary. So I do need to find nicer UIs for a "we now have a huge amount of editions" problem anyway, along with updates to the edition icon handling that is now cumbersome and old (cumbersome to add special icons for editions i mean, as evidenced by the "ribbon" everywhere and extras having same icon as main set etc).

So if I have to do it anyway, perhaps adding a separate edition for etched is not that big of a deal....

@sebi

Since we have your attention on the tread right now I kinda wanted to bring up the issue of card prices. Now I know deckbox has its own way of calculating pricing for cards and I have heard of the issues with TCGplayer in the past and everything. I get it. However the prices here compared to the rest of the collection universe has been exponentially increasing and since all the recent card spikes and such has just exacerbated the issue.

Currently on deckbox my collection is worth $51,000 which is exciting to see, but I also have my collection in the DelverLens app since it allows me to see other price structures and according to the app my collection, with TCG Market pricing, is only worth $40,000. That is over a 20% increase in value here compared to the rest of the world. A 20% difference is extremely hard to justify as some sort of variance between systems. This is a very well known issue and because of this many of us go to TCG player to check prices before making trades here because we just can't rely on the prices. This is just extra overhead which makes using deckbox a little less desirable.

It also does not seem like prices are really updating nearly as much as they should be or not in the best way possible.

I have a Mythic Edition Jace, the Mind Sculptor. You can see in my inventory today that it is $313.37. According to TCGPlayer it is about $180 ($210 mid). According to MTGGoldfish it is about (which uses TCGMid for prices) it has not been over $300 since January 2019. That seems to be about the last time I saw the price of the card change on deckbox was about 2 years ago.

I also get the other side of the coin too. Right now my highest priced card is a foil 7th edition Strands of Night at nearly $600. There is no way in HELL that card is $600. It was steady at about $36 until some smacked-asses decided to up the price of TCG Mid (and probably thus their collection's price) by putting them up for $600. Same thing happened with Magistrate's Veto a few months back when one guy put them up three of them up for between $1500 - $2000 each. I'd love to see my collection jump an extra $1500 over night, but when the card is really worth like $5 ... moral of the story never use TCG Mid for pricing.

I would LOVE someone to want to make a trade for my Strands and give me $600 in value for it, but I would not even feel right accepting it because I know that price is inflated by 1500%. Since I know it is obviously erroneous I then have of go check another website for a price and since I have to compare apples to apples I have to check all their card prices which just takes a lot of time to even out a trade that way. Then their is always the issue of the other party not using that scale for price or seeing a trade that appears uneven because of deckbox pricing and making it seem like I am trying to rip them off in some way. Where as if everything was just more inline with the rest of the world that kinda thing is just eliminated.

I have not made a trade with just deckbox prices in a year and a half maybe? I have had to check other websties for prices because everything is just so off from reality overall. I'd like to get back to the point where I feel I can trust deckbox a little more on pricing again.

I would like to say that if you are willing to follow Scryfall's lead with the etched foiling that maybe you could use Scryfall for pricing. Their prices are not an fluid as TCG obviously, but they seem fairly consistent with actual real prices. And then in that case you could even incorporate the scryfallid into your database and maybe make it available for exporting thus making it even easier for everyone to cross reference between systems since it is such a common identifier these days. Just and idea on that front.

sebi wrote:Perhaps a separate edition that has a distinct edition icon is still the cleanest way to go

Perhaps you could do this by adding a very thin accent line to the edition icon, just so they're as impossible to distinguish from non-foil editions as etched-foil cards are? ;-)

/uj I actually have a strong preference for the foil-etched flag to be in-line with the card number on the card, because otherwise Deckbox will say that I am missing a card number that I actually have. This is a collector's issue, as it will be confusing to try to compare two different editions when I'm seeing what cards I'm missing from a set. Please reconsider making these separate editions.

All that said, I appreciate all the hard work and thought you put into maintaining and expanding this site, @sebi!

I tried to use the Mass Input option, and it did add all the cards, but even though I selected "one of each" it added two of everything to my inventory. Why is everything listed twice?

The scanning of the list can be solved by adding an optionnal column in the tables and search option

The foil is a property of the same cards so it should not modify identifier like name or card number. It make thing more complicated if I want to export the data to do something with them in excel if they have special way of naming things in the same column

Late reply to this thread - it doesn't look like the "foil etched" issue was ever resolved - is that correct?

They are listed in their own set ... like you will see a Modern Horizons II Etched Foil set. There are only a handful of cards that I know of that don't really have a designation for etched foil when they should (Secret Lairs Guild Signets).

ic0n67 wrote:They are listed in their own set ... like you will see a Modern Horizons II Etched Foil set. There are only a handful of cards that I know of that don't really have a designation for etched foil when they should (Secret Lairs Guild Signets).

Gotcha - I ran into the Secret Lair exceptions. I didn't see a way to enter etched foil cards for SLD 305-309, 325-329, or 590. There certainly might be more. @sebi, is addressing this on your roadmap?

Hey,
I've read the thread but somehow etched foils are still confusing me very much.

Are they only called etched foils or are they foils (which are etched)?
Does the number (e.g. 520, "Raised by Giants" from CLB) already indicate that this is an etched foil or are they only the etched variant of the card?

PS: +1 for a foil etched flag :D