Recent updates to Multiverse Feedback: (Generated at 2014-04-17 06:44:27)
Page 1 - Older activity
The most resilient I can see is:
When type becomes planeswalker:
If you're not willing to add a third field; then blanking the one you didn't pick is the second best option, I think.
Another equally less-good option would be to present a thid box for loyalty; label it as such, and flip to the planeswalker frame if the use puts something there.
Type is usually the last field I fill out. I'm not making a planes-walker; I'm making a card. Sometimes it turns out to be a planes-walker.
...Oh. Okay, I guess I hadn't considered someone designing a planeswalker typing a detail like initial loyalty before setting the big-picture things like type="Planeswalker". I would have thought the way it looks like a P/T box rather than a loyalty shield would dissuade you from doing that. But yes, what you propose is a plausible means for occasional users to submit planeswalker cards with nonblank power.
If someone submits a planeswalker with power as well as toughness (that isn't Jeska, Mending Medium), do you think I should actually ignore and blank the power, since I have no way to display it anyway?
it's exactly as Vitenka stated. it's easily replicated. make a new card, type in a value for power, then type in Planeswalker, then preview. you can see power value, no slash or toughness. at this point, the edit frame only shows one box for loyalty. so type in a value, then preview. now you see P/T. now delete the loyalty, then preview. you see just power value. so by this point, the user is confused since he doesn't know what happens behind the scenes nor what to do to get the loyalty to show up correctly.
I think the point is that a "new card" form comes up with two blank boxes, down in the bottom right.
It's not at all obvious which one you should fill in, if you want to make a planeswalker. Nor is there any prompting that you should fill out the type first, to make the frame change.
So people are as likely to pick one as the other. (Obviously, if someone is actually making a creature, having two is right and it's obvious what they're for)
Do I gather from the tone of your comment that you think you do understand why the bug appears? Could you have a go at explaining precisely under what circumstances a planeswalker can acquire a nonblank power?
i think you still don't completely understand why the bug appears, how the user interacts with the unintuitive interface, and why sharing fields in a database is a bad idea. as vitenka brought up, now you have to remember these exceptions for every type of output that could ge generated.
I've been bearing Jeska, Mending Medium in mind throughout this discussion, but, well, there's a reason SadisticMystic commented on her "A lot of players would have problems handling innate creature planeswalkers no matter how you phrase them, so I wouldn't worry about seeing a card like this pop up in a booster pack near you". And SM is both the card's creator and the person who knows the rules best out of anyone I've interacted with.
Gideon Jura-style planeswalkers are fairly frequent, but inherently creature-plus-planeswalker cards? Ideally they'd want a custom frame to show both the P/T box and the loyalty, but, well, let's say writing a custom frame for a niche case like that isn't my highest priority. I'm fairly sure the toughness box does accept "/" (and I think even " ", space) so she'd be able to work as well as she currently does even under this new proposal.
(amuseum's comments continue to puzzle me. Are you saying you think that of the two creature stats, power is more like loyalty than toughness is?)
Seems a good compromise to me. Toughness/Loyalty accepts things like 'X' and '*', so presumably the solution for Jeska would be to also permit '/'.
Note: Also important to be consistent in handling this field in other forms of output - card export, plain view etc.
Jeska, Mending Medium is a thing.
well, if a user would type in a number before changing frames, they would usually first type it in the power box, not the toughness. so the whole situation is unintuitive. 1) sharing loyalty box with toughness or power. 2) worse, choosing toughness over power to be shared.
In general users don't start with creatures and turn them into planeswalkers, certainly. But in general planeswalkers created on here come out with just one figure in the loyalty box. The bug you and wlframe experience seems to be pretty unusual.
But yes, the user can't fix it while staying in the planeswalker frame, which is why I created this discussion topic for the proposed enhancement to hide power on planeswalkers. I'm planning to make this fix unless anyone can suggest reasons why it's a bad idea.
it's not user error. if a user is making a pw, theres no reason to assume he started with a creature. even so, after it becomes a pw, the user cannot fix it by staying in the pw frame and has no idea why it still shows p/t.
As Jack said, it's Chrome on Android. I would clear my cache but I don't know how. :-(
I'll Google it.
FWIW, I definitely had the same problem for a while (Chrome on Android), but recently it's seemed OK.
Hm. It's certainly working for most of us. I don't know what would be causing this. Can you clear your phone browser's cache?
There's a related bug with planeswalkers like Nu, Force of Oblivion or a planeswalker version of Loyal Cathar - it's not possible to add a loyalty shield on the night side even if you want one.
I think I need to make the card editing form show the loyalty shield / P/T box on the night side in all cases, and then when displaying the card show the shield / PTbox only if it's got any contents.
Another related thing to represent would be "This isn't the cards intended name, just something I made up to hang on it for now"
But it really should be a separate column, (rendering as a star after the name on printed cards if desired). That provides both "able to see at a glance which cards are reprints" and "doesn't have two cards with the same name with different 'name' fields". I mean, I agree that feature is not worth the effort of implementing, but I think it's the correct idea?
V: Ah. I think the cardset designers really do wanna see those stars, though (as an easy-to-spot visual indicator of how many reprints a set has), so you have fairly opposed aims there. Unless I make it a per-user preference, I guess... (Which would need me to start by implementing per-user preferences...)
Can I suggest a Tampermonkey script?
mmm yes; whatever the behaviour is should really be a checkbox; with ...* as a short-cut way of triggerring it :)
But I really wanna not see those stars :)
A visual way of recognising a card as a reprint would be useful, whether it keys off "...*" or a separate field. (Although probably not a high priority.)
Maybe expanding it in the display. Something like?
CardName* -> (((CardName*))) (Reprint of CardName)
Hiding the star would rather defeat the point of including it. I could add a link to the original card easily enough. I actually tried to auto-detect existing card names, but it hit some problem - the regexp was too big, or some such.