Talk:Magic: The Gathering Online

Cant use the good sets from ye olden days

Back in junior high school there were sets called "antiqities" and "arabian nights". How come they wont allow you to pick what cards you want and just play people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.24.179 (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of players?

Does anyone know the # of players on MTGO? --Garric 00:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I worked on MTGO (2002-March 2004), and in March 2004 they had about 120,000 registered accounts. some of these were inactive, some were created for the sole purpose of credit card fraud, and many people owned several accounts as a way to better manage their virtual card collections (since accounts themselves are free; only the cards cost money). So the exact number of players on MTGO is unknowable, even by WotC itself.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saulpwanson (talk • contribs) 22:19, October 7, 2005

Down Times

Shouldn't we add something about the infamous downtimes that MTGO constantly suffers? Also, is there anything about version 3.0 we can go ahead and add?--Bedford 01:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Version 3.0 Info

I added info on version 3.0, or Magic Online III, as WotC seems to want to call it. More information at http://pc.ign.com/articles/691/691016p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.53.156 (talk • contribs) 20:34, March 22, 2006

Physical card trade in?

I used to be a big MTGO player, but lost interest after a while. There used to be a policy that you could trade in a full set of online cards for a full set of physical cards. Is that policy still in effect? Is it limited to certain sets? For instance, are older sets such as Invasion still supported? Seems like there could be a section to address these issues. Warthog32 20:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my inaccurate edit, when I used to buy MTGO cards, I remember all the cards being more expensive. Given, that it was in the early days of MTGO before buying online cards outside MTGO was widely available. The card market seems to have changed alot since then, making the physical trade in option more valuable. --dark420bishop 3:07P, Dec 17th 2006

Ownage

I've read somewhere (mtgnews.com) that you don't actually "own" the digital cards, like you do the physical cards in real life. If something happens to the cards, Wizards does not need to do anything about them; since you had never "owned" these cards in the first place. Can someone maybe add this into the article?

First, the word is "ownership". Second, if "something happens" to your physical cards, WotC doesn't have to do anything about that either. So instead of stating obvious facts, you should state the point that you are trying to make. Ham Pastrami 08:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is discussed in the article. SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened?

This article reports that MTGO will be released on Fall of 2006, and the beta in Summer of 2006. However, from the looks of the latest video at the Penny Arcade Expo (with an interview with one of the developers), it was mentioned that we should expect the beta to be released in January or February of 2007 -- 3 months prior to the release of the actual game; so the actual launch will be in the first half of 2007! This is MUCH later than what had been reported at Wizards.com, or what this Wiki article states. How can that be? It went from being released this Fall (2006), to Summer or maybe even Fall of 2007? That's almost a year jump -- a year in difference! What happened?

Several of the sections (most notably on the transition between Version 1.0 to Version 2.0) could be considered highly biased with coached and subjective wording. Has someone reviewed the text properly?

PJammaGod 13:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete "Note on using MTGO under GNU/Linux (WINE)"?

MTGO appears to be broken (new bordered cards do not display properly) using WINE as of the release of Future Sight.

MTGO v.3 will not work under WINE (as far as I can tell... ??)

MTGO3 uses some unholy combination of the win32 api, .net and directx 9. Theres no way this is going to fly under wine . . . Why a children's card game needs directx 9 and .net - the world may never know, but as it stands, they couldn't have made it harder to port. Back in my day we used c++ . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.109.44 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheese

I am often asked the definition of Cheese by other players in MTGO, and there is a quite common definition of the phrase (although a minority of players argue about the finer points).

I think it would be nice to put forwards a clear definition so that we can point people towards the MTGO Wikipedia page for the clear definition.

Cheese deck, or cheese cards are those decks or cards which create an unfair advantage or more importantly reduce the fun of a game. The most common type of play referred to as cheese is the destruction of basic lands which stops the opponent(s) from being able to play anything. Around half the MTGO players feel that any sort of card can be played and that there are no bad cards, while the other half feel that certain types of cheese cards reduce the overall fun of the game and want to avoid games that contain them.

Main types of cheesy decks are: - Theft - Basic land destruction - Decks that have many counter spells in - Decks that cause mass discard, or individual mass discard cards such as Black Myojin - Time stretch spells (player takes further turns) - Combinations that allow for infinite loops - Heavy bounce decks - Certain combinations of doubling season (such as with Plainswalker) - Decks that kill through heavy direct damage (using X spells and cloudposts or coffers to deal very heavy amounts of damage)

Other very cheesy cards: Mind slaver, Ishoron scepter with counter/bounce, platinum angel, decree of silence (and other similar heavy counter cards).

I would appreciate some feedback and assistance to expand this section a little from those people who have played MTGO for many years and have a good feeling for the common definition of cheese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit Temple (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

1, complaints about cheese aren't a topic unique to MTGO. The same debates happen at kitchen tables and gaming shops. It's just harder to avoid on MTGO, because you play with unfamiliar people a lot more, so if this is discussed anywhere, it should be in a general article.

2, a section on the subject would almost certainly be "original research" by Wikipedia standards. There's a long-running forum thread on this at the wizards.com official MTGO bulletin board, and there are other MTG-specific wikis out there where this can be added to, but I don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia.

3, while this talk page itself isn't really a discussion forum... I would propose you're looking at it in the wrong way. Power level imbalance is a much bigger problem for fun games. Fully powered Ravager Affinity back in its heyday isn't very fun at all to take on with an "average" deck, but a janky bounce or burn deck isn't offensive at all. Many of the strategies you describe aren't actually that powerful, in general. SnowFire (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Devoid of criticism, and links to alternatives

This article almost looks like a marketing blob from the wizards of the cost. It says in the first part: "utilizing the concept of a virtual economy in order to preserve the collectible aspect of the card game." and then refers to the sites of WoTC and hasbro. These are statements from WoTC and hasbro, which both own MtG Online, and this statement is therefore not NPOV.

One could also claim that WoTC has financial motive to ask money for virtual cards, instead of making them freely available (and, e.g. ask money for just the client). Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the financial motive is more relevant for WoTC than the reason stated on the wikipedia page, i.e. "to preserve the collectible aspect of the card game", as the collectible aspect is irrelevant for gameplay itself.

Also, there are free alternatives online: e.g. Magic Workstation. I just want to state my points here, and hope someone that someone else sees merit in my criticism and will edit this article. Blablablerg (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Replaced WotC/Hasbro links with a third-party source. Beyond that, your proposed discussion of criticism and alternatives also requires reliable sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That third party source is Gamespot. Gamespot's neutrality can be disputed as game publishers are able to advertise on Gamespot (see for example the Gerstman dismissal affair). But even if we assume that Gamespot is neutral, your source in question is an opinion piece (a game review) and in no way authoritative on company decision making.

WP:RS clearly states that "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact".

The statement that "MTGO utilizes the concept of a virtual economy in order to preserve the collectible aspect of the card game" is presented as a fact in the wikipedia article. While that statement might be true (even if the source is not reliable), one can also claim that "MTGO utilizes the concept of a virtual economy in order to make more profit, since the alternative model (selling the game itself, and not the virtual cards) results in significantly less profit".

The question then arises: Is the concept of a virtual economy utilized to make more profit, accidentally resulting in the preservation of the collectible aspect, or is the concept of a virtual economy utilized to preserve the collectible aspect, accidentally resulting in more profit?

I tend to agree with the vision that the primary purpose of a business is to maximize profit (cf. the business philosophy article on wikipedia), hence the preservation of the collectible aspect is accidental.

It is therefore reasonable from the NPOV that you cannot claim that "MTGO utilizes the concept of a virtual economy in order to preserve the collectible aspect of the card game" without mentioning the fact that utilizing the concept of a virtual economy makes substantially more profit for WoTC. And, as i have mentioned before, the gamespot source is hardly reliable on this matter. Blablablerg (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what's going on here. You're trying to interject an additional comment regarding "why" this business model was chosen, according to your personal belief, but since you have no sources to back it up, you're trying to get it into the article by taking issue with a completely NPOV statement about "what" the business model is, and questioning the sources that are provided for it. In short, you are attempting to game the system. Do not attack the existing content and sources until you can provide better ones for your views. GameSpot is considered a first-tier source for video game articles, and you can feel free to ask around about that, as well as the ways you have misrepresented WP policies. FYI, reviews are not op-ed pieces, what you wrote above is an op-ed piece. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Im not trying to game any system here. Game reviews are certainly opinion pieces, and in no way authoritative on business policy. They might have some authority on games, but not on business policy. Just because it is not a reliable source, does not mean i have to come up with other sources proving the statement in question is false. Blablablerg (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain where exactly you're trying to go with this. Nobody disputes that this is an attempt to make money for Wizards of the Coast as well, but that would be true of literally every game that isn't freeware. Nothing special here. And anyway I'd say that your criticism is really just a rehash of a criticism against all collectible card games both in real life and online - which that sentence is exactly about! I still have friends who refused to buy cardboard Magic because they thought it should come in one box a la a board game and just be all there for you. Which is fine, but it's a criticism of all CCGs, not MTGO specifically... it'd make as much sense to mention here as to mention, in every single article on a puzzle game, that some people don't like puzzle games.

Also, more generally, it's strange indeed to call this "criticism." Most products would be happy to be criticized for making too much money.

Discussing alternatives is done so in that there's a link to Magic: The Gathering video games in the See also section, which seems about right to me. Maybe there should be some mention of the Encyclopedia as the semi-official predecessor to MTGO, I guess, but that's it. Unless you think that every commercial chess program article should have a section that mentions the existence of freeware chess programs... SnowFire (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Where i want to go is that the statement "MTGO utilizes the concept of a virtual economy in order to preserve the collectible aspect of the card game" is simply not NPOV, or factually accurate as there is at the moment no way to be sure that to preserve the collectible aspect of the card game is the reason why they chose to sell virtual cards. Therefore, the statement should be modified or removed.

While i agree with you that this 'criticism' goes for all CCGs (that the collectible aspect makes them money, and that its obvious), it is exactly because of this fact that the claim in question (preserving the collectible aspect) is one-sided.

About the alternatives, you might be right. Still, they are relevant as they utilize the same game (playing magic online) only in a different way.Blablablerg (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has gone from being devoid of criticism to reading like an opinion piece. To clarify, lines such as "It looks ugly", "The last good version", and "There are too many flaws to list" are matters of personal opinion that do not belong in an encyclopedic article. 65.40.16.163 (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I read this article for the first time just now, and the same struck me. In particular the v4 section, with the following sentence: "One crucial key factor is that, people would rather trade with a person than a bot just like in real life paper Magic but the developers failed to see this reality and as a result, trading is now dominated by bots and almost 80% of players are heavily dissatisfied and a large percentage leaves the game." The language is flawed, the sentence is heavily opinionated, and the citation doesn't back any of these claims. This is not encyclopedic material. Hahahopp (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

It was just an IP address whining about bots. Good catch, but no need to even comment, just revert entirely - it was only added ~5 days ago. (I reverted their edit more fully now.) SnowFire (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized it after making the comment. My apologies for assuming this was done by anyone in here; I just happened to read this article soon after that particular edit had been made. I suspect that this IP user is the same as one who has been responsible for vandalism around the MTG parts of Wikipedia recently. Hahahopp (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

bots, more details.

can somebody with the knowledge please write more details about bots. like HOW TO GET THEM AND HOW TO RUN THEM. At least maybe add a list of bot software with some links to the websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.131.17 (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensive source

This article should be a good 3rd party source for almost all relevant developments on Magic Online. OdinFK (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Criticism and ongoing issues

Magic Online has had a lot of criticism over the years, little of which is represented in this article. To have a better neutral point of view these should be covered.

One example would be that limited league play was last functional in version 2, with continuing unfulfilled promises of it returning for years.

Another example would be cards that do not work correctly, and may have never worked correctly, but still get implemented in new environments

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Magic: The Gathering Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070519021101/http://www.wizards.com:80/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/fk4 to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/fk4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Magic: The Gathering Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080422045116/http://boards1.wizards.com:80/showthread.php?t=691721 to http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=691721

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magic: The Gathering Online. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060720172826/http://magiconlinestore.wizards.com/help/tos.htm to http://magiconlinestore.wizards.com/help/tos.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"Paupers deck challenge" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Paupers deck challenge has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 5 § Paupers deck challenge until a consensus is reached. Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 15:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)