What happened to the combo's
TappedOut forum
Posted on May 31, 2016, 1:36 p.m. by Welldasgood
Just wondering what happened to the combos portion of each individual card page, It was very helpful for building a good base of a deck
Yeah, the majority are what I would call noob combos: basic synergy, not a good combo.
May 31, 2016 1:45 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #4
While it's not a function I personally used often, I do see its usefulness for much of our community. Many users complained that it was ripe for abuse, but just pointing out relevant synergies could be valuable.
If there was some way the users could upvote combos/synergies, it may allow newer deck builders to gain insight into their own deck building?
May 31, 2016 1:49 p.m.
iBleedPunk says... #5
Monsmtg because you found them useless doesn't mean the new players that come to this site would think the same
May 31, 2016 2:06 p.m.
Pokemaster325, yes, but the feature is called "combo", not "synergy."
May 31, 2016 2:32 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #7
And for years Rules Q&A was called something different and we always had people posting non mtg-rules questions there. What we have in front of us is a feature that could be used by part of our population if the title captured what it's function is.
May 31, 2016 3:19 p.m.
RoarMaster says... #8
Personally I like the idea, I was very unimpressed when Gatherer stopped allowing comments on cards. I used to go there to check out different ways to use the card, or combos/synergies that I may not have thought of. I would like to see this site have something along those lines myself, although I must admit it is probably a pretty low priority for yeago.
May 31, 2016 3:55 p.m.
Monsmtg - The problem with that statement is that you use the word combo to mean one thing, while the definition of combo (or 'combination') is something else. - Note: there is no MTG definition of 'combo', it's completely a player/community term with different meanings for different people.
When new players look for combo's, they are rarely looking for an 'infinite combo'. They are usually looking for cards which combine well with other cards.
Simply clarifying the difference by either calling the page feature 'Infinite Combos', or 'Synergistic Combos' (whichever it is intended to be) would completely fix the issue.
May 31, 2016 3:59 p.m.
The problem I think is that combos added automatically when you added two cards in brackets together. Sometimes people would use that formatting just to group two cards that go nicely together, that aren't a combo/synergy at all.
I think the upvoting combo idea sounds good because then the site has a way to automatically display the most pertinent and/or relevant combinations whilst hiding those that are poor.
The database was full of absolute junk but the idea itself was not at all a bad one.
May 31, 2016 4:10 p.m.
hyperlocke says... #11
Upvoting would hide the nonbos at the end of the list, but it would also introduce a very subjective ranking of actual combos.
Like say, I don't like life drain so I downvote Sanguine Bond + Exquisite Blood. But I like mill, so I upvote Helm of Obedience + Leyline of the Void. Both are viable combos, but the mill combo would be higher on (my personal) list. Granted, you would get an average of the user base's preferences, but that still isn't an objective list of combos.
If we want such a feature, we should do it right: Sortable by number of cards, mana cost, color, card types, price, maybe even user rating. But that would require a whole database and combos would have to be submitted or approved by admins.
And while I agree this would be a nice feature, this seems like a lot of work for something I can find in the top 3 Google entries of a search for "cardname combo"...
May 31, 2016 4:54 p.m.
An average of a very large sample (i.e. all of tappedout voting) is a pretty great proxy for the scientific method (an average of a large sample of repeated observations) and is as close to objective as we usually accept.
I would posit no downvotes, only upvotes.
Each card would have combos on its page so you could easily view all of the listed ones.
May 31, 2016 5:05 p.m. Edited.
hyperlocke says... #13
Sure, but a ranking based on our preferences is not an objective list of combos. I would be totally OK with having rating as a sorting option. It just shouldn't be the only one.
May 31, 2016 5:17 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #14
I've said this basically every time the combo database came up. The idea itself is good and worth pursuing. However, regular users should absolutely not have the power to add directly to the database. Having a carefully select subcommittee generating, or at least screening, combo entries would be best.
The problem is that the general user base just can't be trusted to curate the feature appropriately.
May 31, 2016 5:58 p.m.
I actually use tappedout.net as my go to source for mtg combos because of it. I'd be sorry to see the feature go.
May 31, 2016 6 p.m.
Maybe it should be limited to members of the site ranked in the top 100 or so, for example, that way you know that the people submitting combos are at least interested in making the site a better place for the mtg community.
May 31, 2016 6:03 p.m.
MindAblaze says... #17
The rating system could be as simple as "did you find this useful? Yes or no."
This way, we don't need to monitor who submits stuff, just what the community finds to be relevant. As long as we don't get a whole bunch of troll combos like Island + Storm Crow , but even then, those "combos" would only be visible on the specific card's page.
May 31, 2016 6:33 p.m.
hyperlocke says... #18
Yeah, but those nonbos being visible on the card's site is a problem. If such a system were to compete with just googling the card, I'd want to be able to go to the card's page and have a list of all combos known to the users of TappedOut with this card. Having a bunch of junk in there is exactly why the previous version was discontinued.
May 31, 2016 6:42 p.m.
Rayenous I don't use it to mean infinite combo, just something more than Doran, the Siege Tower + Veteran Armorer
May 31, 2016 8:52 p.m.
My $0.02:
I love the feature; it's a great way to see where other folks have found card synergies.
Not sure what the right term is ... there's a wide grey area between 'cards that play well together' and 'infinite combo'
I frankly think the bar for combo entry is pretty good ... the syntax is easy but not obvious, and im good with allowing someone who's taken the time to actually read the Formatting Tips page to tell T/O their thoughts on Silverfur Partisan + Zada, Hedron Grinder , or whatever :-D
May 31, 2016 9:28 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
IMO, if we're going to take the time to set up a combo database, we should probably attempt to distinguish between combos and synergies (and things that are neither, yet get proposed anyway).
In the past, I've held that a combo is any repeatable loop of actions that wins the game (or enables you to do so), or any set of cards that causes a form of lock. A synergy is just an interaction between cards that produces greater advantage than either card produces on its own. So all combos are synergies, but not all synergies are combos.
For example, Deadeye Navigator + Palinchron is a combo, whereas Deadeye Navigator + Avenger of Zendikar (or any other creature with a decent ETB ability) is just a good synergy.
Combos are actually worth listing because they actually win games or form core mechanics for a deck.
Synergies may be worth listing to some extent, but there are countless synergies among cards in this game. Where do we draw the line? Would we have to list (or accept) any pairing between Deadeye Navigator and a creature with an ETB ability?
I think we should stick with combos, at least for the beginning. Attempting to curate a synergy list would be a tremendous pain in the ass and likely also have diminishing returns. Maybe some method of enhancing the discussion on individual card pages would reduce the need for a synergy database.
I also think that some way to tag infinite combos would be useful. If we revamped the combo database, it would be very helpful to be able to search for "infinite mana" and find all of the infinite mana combos, or maybe then filter by number of pieces, colors, average CMC of the cards, etc.
May 31, 2016 9:41 p.m.
Welldasgood says... #22
I realize what combo means in the world of mtg, it means inf. combo. The word itself just means combination which is why I have never agreed with the terminology. With that being said,I think a lot of these ideas are really good. I was just really wondering if tappedout removed it for good if anybody knew?
May 31, 2016 11:08 p.m.
Combos have been reinstated. The only ones that will show on the card page are ones that have been reviewed. You can browse all from there page by page.
June 1, 2016 3:24 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #25
Just remove the entire combase database and start over from scratch. We are NEVER EVER going to go through 40k submissions of combos. We need to start all over again.
June 1, 2016 8:04 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #26
Oh, and then change the syntax for combo entering, so that existing instances of combos don't show up.
June 1, 2016 8:12 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #27
Maybe we could just use that syntax to link a combo and have a form to submit a new combo. If the combo isn't in the database, you can't link it (and you're reminded that you can submit it).
June 1, 2016 8:13 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #28
Good idea there. We would also need a way to auto-reject combo submissions that have been rejected in the past.
June 1, 2016 8:19 p.m.
that kinda leads us back to keeping the 40k if you think about it
June 1, 2016 8:25 p.m.
Femme_Fatale, I don't think it's feasible, but if you could ban cards from showing up (vanilla etc) then you could stop junk combos too.
June 1, 2016 8:32 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #31
Well, I think if we could wipe the slate clean and start with that idea, then it would work. Just permanently approve or disapprove submissions as they come in.
June 1, 2016 8:32 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #32
No, because then we would still have to go through every single submission that exists yeaGO. No one here wants to go through all that.
That is potentially feasible Monsmtg. The basics would be the first to go. I'm a little hesitant on the vanilla cards though due to cmc, P/T and creature type interactions that could occur.
For the submissions, making sure that the cards involved are automatically aligned in alphabetical order will allow the permanence to stay handy. Additionally, a description of the combo for those who wish to go through the combase and read on how it works. I would say a 20 word minimum.
June 1, 2016 8:45 p.m.
i guess i am not really understanding how one is saving calories by removing combos which likely will just be created at some point again in the future....
maybe there's a comprimise, we could break them up into formats. i don't really see how the combos can even be useful without format.
June 1, 2016 9:01 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #34
Basically, we are never going to go through that list of combos. If you keep the list, no matter what you do, no one will touch it because it is an unkempt mess of data that we will not use.
And yes, breaking them up into formats is important. Standard shouldn't be an option though due to rotation, and there not being any actual combos in Standard. However, most combos are relevant in EDH regardless of which format they are present for, so that's a problem. It should more be "which formats this is legal in", and should be an automatic calculation rather than an option a user chooses from an drop-down menu. Sort of like how the deck legality works right now.
June 1, 2016 9:14 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #35
@yeaGO: Going through 40,000 combos is a pain in the ass, and nobody is really willing to do it. And most of those combos aren't actually even combos, so we'd be expending lots of effort just to save a handful of worthy entries. It's easier to wipe everything and then only accept real combos from then on. We could have a select number of approved people who would evaluate combos and accept/reject them based on defined, consistent criteria.
@Femme_Fatale: As for formats, it makes no sense to exclude Standard. If there's a combo in Standard, it's an acceptable combo. The fact that Standard rotates only affects whether the combo can be played in Standard, not whether it's a viable combo. Combo format data could be handled by querying the legalities of the cards themselves rather than by some manual process. I think this is what you're getting at, but your post seems to contradict itself.
June 1, 2016 9:56 p.m.
Femme_Fatale says... #36
There are currently a few people beyond myself who either are, or would be willing to, work on the combase after it has been wiped clean.
I mainly opted to exclude standard because WotC actively prevents any actual combos in Standard beyond simple synergies. If some get by WotC and can be done I would gladly add them in manually, but for the most part having this auto rejection would prevent many pointless weak synergies that pop-up with every new set from needing to be filtered through.
I think however that would be a more of a resort to turn to after we see just how many combos get submitted on a daily basis. The "auto legality" is definitely what I was going for.
June 1, 2016 10:27 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #37
Well, if we had a way to remember rejections, that would probably handle a large number of the Standard "combos" (if only because there are so few).
yeaGO says... #2
as many users pointed out, they were junk. I'm surprised you found some of them useful... really? I would be glad to add them back, I honestly thought most people thought they were garbage.
May 31, 2016 1:42 p.m.