Can you believe it? Even more fixes!

I’ve published a new minor upgrade: 0.6.1.5.

No breaking changes or features, just 10 new fixes. Thanks to Hearn who reported 8 of those, which makes him the bug reporter of the month 😉

As usual, if you want to see all the small changes you can check the recent activity in the bug tracker. The most important changes are:

  • Removing markers is now correctly reported in the log window;
  • Existence and correctness of pictures in set files are now checked during set import to prevent crashes during games;
  • The multiple selection lasso was imprecise on tapped cards. Manipulating cards near their edges may have some unwanted effects;
  • Targetting arrows may be incorrectly placed when moving a card across the 2-sided table limit;
  • Several crashes in weirds corner cases (e.g. creating a token which isn’t in your database, loading an empty deck, or adding 0 markers, …).

I also did start working on limited play (that is: drafting and such). And I would like to know what you think about print runs:

[1] I am not interested at all in limited play, so don’t even think about print runs!
[2] I don’t care about print runs. Random packs (according to rarities of course) are more than enough!
[3] Print runs would be great. They are more realists and the sequence of cards has been balanced by the game designers. I don’t really think it would be useful, though, because I don’t know of any published print runs for my favorite games.
[4] Print runs are awesome. And for the games I play, they are available here: (provide some links to descriptions of the way print runs work in your game please).

I personnally think print run support would be a nice plus for OCTGN 2, but I don’t really know of any source of print runs [3]. Without data print runs are useless, so I am currently unsure if I will code the feature.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: OCTGN.net

19 Comments on “Can you believe it? Even more fixes!”

  1. Oen Says:

    Thanks for all the fixes!

    I would say I am #1 on that list, but lots of people enjoy them. 🙂

  2. Etienne Dupuis Says:

    #2 for me!

  3. Kelgate Says:

    DRAFT!! I cannot wait for draft!

  4. Annonymous Says:

    You read my mind with the new icons for OCTGN. It looks great in Windows 7 now, as it doesn’t have a regular application icon for it now. One thing I’d suggest changing is getting rid of the 2.0 in front of the OCTGN logo, just to make it flow better, since you don’t have 2.0 in front of everything else for most part.

    Here’s what I’m talking about:

  5. Hearn Says:

    Personally, I would probably be satisfied with [2], but that may be because I don’t draft competitively and am not skilled enough to notice the difference. I do think it would be great to have print run capabilities. Here are some good articles that detail a few different ways that print runs have been used:

    http://magic.tcgplayer.com/db/article.asp?id=6995

    http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/article/8365.html

    http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/ravlimited/11262_The_Guildpact_Common_PrintRuns.html

    http://www.starcitygames.com/php/news/print.php?Article=13039

  6. Blue Slime Says:

    #2 for me. I’ve been excited about having sealed play. Keep up the good work Jods.

  7. UN17 Says:

    #2 is my vote, though with Print Runs is nice if you can figure out how they work.

  8. Kurt Says:

    I’m going with #1

  9. Daidoji Says:

    I’d say (2) to start with. I tried to find print runs for mtg but had no luck.

    In a related note I was attempting a ‘draft deck’ that ran off a dummy octgn client. It works okay in single session but the main problem is lacking a “save deck as…” in game which reads from your current library/sideboard.

    This would also make octgn work like a visual deck editor.

  10. Makkert Says:

    http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/arcana/155

    for info on the printsheet policy.
    It doesn’t look that complicated as a system.

    but imho [2] is probably fine.

  11. GLH510 Says:

    1 for me

    (need more card stacks, peaking … 😉

  12. brinelol Says:

    Print runs in magic are very complicated. There’s often more than one list that are randomly chosen, different sections of the pack get different lists, etc. There’s a guy on youtube that’s the closest anyone’s gonna get to a “pro” at determining the print runs, http://www.youtube.com/user/recardwizard He sells a book which apparently has the complete runs of every set released so far, as well as all discrepancies found in each set.

    Another issue with them is that most of the time, the print run lists either focus on the rares, or the commons. Usually not both, and almost never the uncommons. Being able to generate a complete pack, incorporating the print runs for all 3 rarities and the 2 or 3 subdivisions of the commons lists, is probably a lot harder to do correctly than it seems.

  13. Tourniquet Says:

    Definately #2! I usually just play sealed anyways when I play OCTGN1 with friends. I would really like to see limited in OCTGN.net, but print runs aren’t so important for me.

  14. Superman Says:

    I looked it up on google and I still don’t know what you mean by print run exactly.

    But I really really do care about having draft functionality.

    And I would like to be able to draft packs from specific sets, like to do a draft of 3 packs of Zendikar and such.

    It’s not that big a deal if the cards show up at a different frequency than they do in real packs, as long as they include one rare or mythic rare, a few uncommons and lots of uncommons, I don’t think many people care much if a certain common shows up more frequently than it does in real life.

    Woo hoo, draft, that’s an awesome functionality. Thank you so much jods. Is there an estimated time frame on when we could hope to get it?

  15. brinelol Says:

    basically, when a company produces booster packs, they print the cards in very large sheets (I think its like 11 by 11 card sheets, 121 cards total). These sheets are identical, so card A is always going to be beside card B in a sheet. When they make booster packs, they cut out the cards but they maintain the same order. Then the packs themselves have a particular order in a booster box.

    So technically, if you open the first pack in a box, you could have an idea on what all the rares are in the box and in what order, based on the rare in the first pack. Likewise, if you get passed a pack in a draft, you could predict which card your opponent took based on what cards are still in the pack (assuming it wasn’t shuffled before being passed).

    The commons in a pack usually come in 2 or 3 sections, and each section is from a different place in the print run list. So the first section of commons could be cards A, B, and C (in the order from the list), and the second section could be cards J, K, and L (still in order, but separate from the first section).

    Why do they bother doing this in the first place? First, it makes producing card packs a lot easier for the company, as they don’t have to worry about completely randomizing the cards. They can print exact copies of each sheet, and don’t have to make different combinations of the same cards.

    It also has great impact in drafts, as it ensures that each pack has 15 different cards, and no duplicates. It also ensures a somewhat equal representation of each card type, for example in Magic, you won’t get a pack that’s half green cards or completely missing blue and white cards.

  16. Spurious Says:

    [4]

    I believe the netdraft .OR2 files contain print run information, but I don’t know if it’s accurate or how to interpret it.

    http://webpages.charter.net/wcbrandt/

    As long as you can generate semi-realistic packs that don’t contain dupes I think it would be fine without print-runs.

  17. brinelol Says:

    yeah looks like they have the basic print runs in there, its probably enough to get a good distribution of cards in the packs. It doesn’t have to be 100% realistic and faithful, it would actually be _better_ if there was just 1 list of commons, etc.

  18. defmoose Says:

    [2] is my vote. Great work as usual Jods! Thanks! =D

  19. PWLRamble Says:

    #2 for me, I love draft play but I think that trying to emulate a print run is more trouble than it’s worth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: