Release 2.0: Collection interface changes, MANY trading rules changes (Page 4 of 5)

Somewhat related to this issue is another suggestion, which I believe I posted elsewhere -- not sure if it's in this thread or another thread.

If a possible trade partner wants a specific version of a card, and I have an unspecified version of that card in my tradelist, I'd like that to appear in the trading opportunities section. As of right now, it doesn't appear. For someone like me with 10K+ unspecified-version cards, trading will be hard without seeing these /potential/ matches. This way, I could see "oh, this person only wants M10 lightning bolts.. let me go see if any of my bolts are from M10", instead of just never seeing the possible overlap. If the versions are different (e.g., all mine are 4th edition and his wishlist is all M10), then it makes sense not to show that overlap in trading opportunities.

Hmmm... Foil prices seem the same as non-foils...

Love the updates that did get put in place, though.

Would like to see the ability to search or sort your decks...either by color, name, format, etc.

Volcanic Island, Beta = $0.00 value.

Let me see if I may help with some of these...

I agree this is an issue.  I ran into this myself as I was working inventory and had to walk away for a moment.  Solutions could be to change the location (itself a pain, if you end up mousing halfway across the screen), or to make sure the card name appears in the pop-up.  Personally, I favor inserting the name in the details popup.

I follow your logic.  The split arrow button splits your inventory across multiple lines.  If adding details to a set that is already in inventory, it makes some sense: split one off and add details for that one (or quantity), split another off and do the same.  If you work from what you have least of to what you have most of, and you only have one of each distinct row, you just keep going until you are left with the final grouping.  If putting in other quantities, however, you have to adjust both lines (the original and the new one). 

Since that interface is not intended for adding new inventory (though sometimes it is most convenient, as when I was confirming inventory counts last night), I'm not sure if it needs fixing (to split to a zero value) or if it should stay the same.  In the Import Cards interface, you have the option of adjusting details as you enter the cards, but I'll let you decide if that interface works for you.

I don't know when you started adding inventory relative to the update.  As mentioned above, the system is designed to let you add details as you entered the inventory.  If you entered your Birds of Paradise as a generic quantity of 200, your current process is the only way to do it (though changes may be forthcoming--not sure what Sebi has in store for us).  The current system for details is (in many ways) far better than what we had before the 2.0 update (at least, imo).

I believe that's a valid point. I don't know how many people collect more than 99 of a given card, but it should not be too tough to widen the field.  I just have to wonder how many people are affected by the two-digit count, and then wonder if someone else might come along and ask Sebi to allow four digits (thousands).

In any case, I know your honest feedback is appreciated by Sebi and Laura.  They review all this feedback.  [They are on holiday right now, and will be picking up the torch again soon.]

While I understand your frustrations (I've experienced everything you have with my inventory of 10k+ cards), I still find this site to be the best out there for managing my inventory.

I would like to toss my two cents in for the collapsible rows. I love being able to see different versions on their own rows, but most of the time I want a total count. Also, as it stands now, only the row showing the total would need to have the deck count in it, because having the deck count for all of that card show up on each row is confusing. Alternatively, maybe we could have the option of specifying which cards are in which decks. I know this would help me out, especially with tracking foils. As an added bonus, it could help improve the accuracy of the "deck value," especially if the issue with foil prices can be resolved.

Thanks for the reply. At least I know I wasn't missing some interface options, judging by your reply.
And I agree 100% about the management tool that this site offers compared to others - I love deckbox.org so I hope I did not come across as a detractor.

And yeah, I had previously entered in generic (yet accurate) card counts previous to the update and was just going back through the collection to specificy all the details per card - and doing so in that order is, unfortunately, ponderous - if I were to START entering cards with the new entry method of course it'd be much simpler.

Indeed, I own an expansive collection and mitigating differences amongst 200+ BoPs can be time-taxing. Perhaps you have a better solution for me, because where this "quantity" visibility issues comes into play the most for me is with basic lands.

1. I entered in over 100 decks that I own a couple years ago, and added all basic lands to inventory while doing so
2. Many of the lands are foiled, signed, etc., and thus would be important to denote
3. After the update I have been going through my physical deck lists in the site, clicking on the INVENTORY count within the deck and modifying the land (and other cards) from the pop up. This is where I can't see my full quantity (i.e., 600 forest) and I have to do squirrely math and arrow keys to correctly ferret out that I just "removed" 12 basic forest and replaced them with 6 unhinged forest and 6 foil forest, for example. It's tedious.

Based on what you said, above, it shouldn't be too difficult to expand the pop up, add a card name header, and expand the entry boxes.

Something else I was wondering - you cannot flag a specific card FOR a specific deck, correct?   If I have two decks with a Darksteel Colossus each, I can't currently flag which deck has the "foil" Colossus in it? Just making sure.

Thanks again!

Unfortunately, I think such an equation breaks down on the two ends of the value scale.  Most penny cards are worth between 25 and 50 cents in foil.  On the high end (e.g., some planeswalkers), the foil values are much higher than the standard versions (e.e., Lilian of the Veil at $25 and the foil at $60).

Man, I wish it was that easy.  Some of the old stuff is just crazy, like an MM brainstorm (foil common is $100).  Even in a new set, cloudshift regular is 15c and foil is more like 1.75.  It sucks when I'm doing all these bulk trades, you really do have to check every single one because you never know what will be sneaky-expensive.

1. A flat percentage mark up definitely would not prove very accurate when conducting trades. That much is true. I wonder why the current api does not differentiate between the two.

2. I was the same way, though to a lesser degree, when I was cleaning up some commons and came across a playset of foil giant growths. I probably own 150 giant growths, but the four foil ones add up to be $75-$100. Crazy.

3. I'd be interested in a foil Gush - what are you looking for - just PM me

4. Would it be too far-fetched to allow end-users to assign a custom value for specific iterations of cards? Maybe it could be highlighted orange or something once it's been custom-valued so other people realize it is not a system default.
   Say I have a foil Masticore that has been signed and altered by the artist - I could assign it my own value and it would instantly be trade-recognizable as such.

Last edited by jfadeX (2013-01-09 05:56:16)

I really like that idea.  When Sebi gets back from holiday, he can let us know if that would be even remotely possible.

Sorry for the multiple posts, but came across these at different times:

Anthologies set is missing from the dropdown (pendelhaven, for example) + Duels of the Planeswalkers is missing (basic lands, as an example)

Also, is it possible to include Summer Magic as a set?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Ed … 28Edgar.29

Last edited by jfadeX (2013-01-16 04:25:41)