Combo that doesn't work
Posted on Feb. 2, 2020, 4:42 p.m. by LeopardBunny
On the site, Brudiclad, Telchor Engineer + Jace, Cunning Castaway is listed as a valid combo. This is incorrect. As other token generation sources are (most likely) not making Planeswalkers, they are not entering with loyalty counters, and cannot obtain loyalty counters. Thus, when turned into Jace tokens, they would immediately fizzle. Unless you need a lot of Planeswalkers to die in order to trigger some effect, this does nothing useful, which if you did then a third card would need to be listed for the combo. As it stands, though, this combo does nothing useful.
LeopardBunny, ignore the validity of the combase's entries. There is no defining line between what is a combo and what is a synergy. No one agrees on any artificial barrier created. Further, people use the combo syntax for a lot more than combos. There's a lot of entries where people just put in basic lands into something.
We tried creating this seven(?) years ago because another site was doing it as their main focus. But because there was no census on that defining line, we just stopped bothering to manage it since all it did was lead to arguments.
February 2, 2020 5:26 p.m.
just because the feature has been lost in committee several times in the history really doesn't mean that it should be ignored. i had recently started publishing them all again and i really don't mind the report. I also wanted to see where the "combo" might have been mentioned before for context, but its strangely not appearing. feel free to continue to report them, we will add some method of flagging
February 2, 2020 6:28 p.m. Edited.
yeaGO I'll admit I'm not actively looking for combos, but if I see any that don't look right, I'll try to remember to post about it.
February 2, 2020 6:51 p.m.
Once there is a way to flag for review I would be more than willing to start sifting through the Combo database. It would be nice if there was a way to see all the combos in a single place as well. The only way I know of to see them is from navigating from a card's page, and even then that is just all of the ones involving that card.
February 2, 2020 11:39 p.m.
added combo edit to ya'lls accounts. might work for now, basically you can set the reviewed status to 'no' if it is a complete junk combo. still trying to decide what to do with other situations, like combos that have many alternate secondary cards, etc.
February 4, 2020 9:52 a.m.
That's actually a question I had - Is there a place on site that we can see a list of the combos?
February 4, 2020 11:42 a.m.
You can currently by clicking on the admin link top right profile, but its a dizzying list. Card pages have the latest listed too
February 4, 2020 11:58 a.m.
sorry, I meant specifically for users without that link. For the average site user, is there anyway to see a list?
February 4, 2020 12:56 p.m.
Not yet, just browsing through cards currently. We can make a portal for it if you have any recommendations
February 4, 2020 1:02 p.m.
ok, ty. I will start reviewing them slowly but surely.
February 4, 2020 2:01 p.m.
Would it be helpful if we put comments in the description? Either on the ones we mark "no" for explanation or on all just to be helpful. Also, would you like us to mark the good combos/synergies as "yes" on reviewed?
February 4, 2020 2:07 p.m.
If you'd like, yeah. That would be a big help. As you mark them as no they'll disappear from card pages. If you wanted to add some description i think that's okay too, if they need one. I wouldn't bother entering a rationale for a bad combo being flagged no though
February 4, 2020 2:13 p.m. Edited.
Are comments we make on ones we mark "yes" going to be visible? I'm just wondering if I can give opinions on them or if I should leave the comments purely clinical. I'm going for clinical atm.
February 4, 2020 2:32 p.m.
Yeah id keep it clinical bear in mind if you discuss the combo elsewhere it should show on the combo page discussion section
February 4, 2020 3:13 p.m.
Wow, so I didn't read the edit of post 14. Looks like I have been doing a lot of typing I didn't need to. Either that or I missed that you said not to put an explanation for bad combos. Either way all of the ones I have marked bad so far have a reasoning. Mostly it is a canned copy+paste though, so... hopefully no big deal.
Either way, one page down 262 to go.
February 4, 2020 6:25 p.m.
No big deal, just wanted to save you some time. Feel free to add some short code if you'd like, i dunno. Anyway, thanks! There's a lot we can do with that list if it's reviewed
February 4, 2020 6:31 p.m.
I guess I could come up with a shorthand for the common reasons for rejection I see. Though Nemesis and I would need to agree upon them and a place to maintain a list of the abbreviations. I can make a google doc spreadsheet to maintain them. If you, Nemesis and whoever else you would like to have access can PM me e-mail addresses I can share it. For now I have noticed a need for:
NSI- No significant interaction
SE- All cards have the same effect.
MI- Multiple distinct interactions that do not compound.
February 4, 2020 7:07 p.m.
An example for each from the ones I have gone through. Let me know if my reasoning is still not clear or if you disagree with any of them.
SE- Deputy of Acquittals and Dream Stalker. They have the same effect and that effect does not provide any unusual advantage with multiples. I guess this is a subreason of NSI, but I have seen it often enough that it feels like it might be something to take note of as a way people are misusing the combo syntax. Just making a list of cards that have the same or similar effects.
MI- Korozda Guildmage and Neheb, the Eternal and Tree of Perdition. This code would be used exclusively for "combos" with three or more pieces. Korozda Guildmage and Tree of Perdition have a synergistic interaction. Neheb, the Eternal and Tree of Perdition have a synergistic interaction. The three cards together do not have a further interaction than the two separate two card interactions.
February 4, 2020 7:44 p.m.
maybe we can make use of the 'category' field for your purposes. Have you been using that? infinite | synergy | lock
February 4, 2020 7:51 p.m.
On the ones I approve I have been. On rejected ones they are none of those things so I have been putting a note in the Description box. I guess maybe we were not communicating well.
I assumed that by "short code" you meant just making a code for rejection reasons. On any that I have marked as "yes" in the review status I have categorized it and tried to provide a short description if I can think of a concise one and I feel it may not be super obvious how it works.
February 4, 2020 8 p.m.
ah okay... well how much absolute garbage are you finding?
for example, we could show only the ones that have category set on the card page because they are more useful and interesting, but cards that have a token interaction for example still might be useful for the user, so marking them 'no' could be problematic. i imagined that status to just be weird junk.
February 4, 2020 8:03 p.m.
Out of the 100 most recent 35 have been good combos/synergies. I have been trying to be generous with what constitutes a synergistic interaction and mark them yes and explain if there is a missing piece. Like someone put Ashnod's Altar + Inheritance . I marked it "yes" and explained that the interaction allows you to sacrifice 3 creatures to draw 2 cards. I guess I could have also explained it as drawing a card for a creature and a single mana, but that isn't how my brain went.
February 4, 2020 8:18 p.m.
what if we just mark review status = true for cards that work together in some way at all, but don't bother to add a category? do you think that there will still be combos that fall under 'no'?
February 4, 2020 8:28 p.m.
May I also suggest tagging some cards that cannot combo, like vanilla creatures and basic lands, and auto-reject any combo submitted from them, and auto-flag anything that currently exists with these.
There are also many cards that create too many synergies. Anything that untaps something or enchants something or grants a keyword to an attacker etc etc generally have too many possible synergies too suggest, though these are on a case-by-case basis.
Edit: Being able to search the combo database by cardname would be helpful for this to quickly find cards that might be offenders in never being in a good combo.
February 4, 2020 8:40 p.m. Edited.
There are still some that either are just lists of cards with the same effect or "combos" that need split into their respective interactions, as with my examples above. I even found someone who used the combo syntax on Plains + Wild Growth.
I have also recently come across a series of "combos" where someone just linked cards with a triggered ability and Strionic Resonator and another where someone linked a bunch of creatures with ETBs and Conjurer's Closet. Both of those are interactions, but it is the obvious use for those cards and doesn't rise to the level of "synergy". Allowing such "combos" to show on a page would make popular enablers page's unusable because of how crowded they would be with combos.
Strionic Resonator + Kor Outfitter (one I honestly reviewed today) is simply how Resonator is made to be used and does not provide any useful information to people wondering how to get stronger than intended interactions out of the card.
Maybe I am being a little too "Spikey", but I think that the combo database should only include things that at a minimum provide an interaction that is stronger than the base interaction that a given card has with every applicable card..
February 4, 2020 8:59 p.m.
Yeah i agree but separating the "mere" interactions from the true junk will be helpful for other reasons
February 4, 2020 9:10 p.m.
There are 76 (the 76 most recent) that I currently have marked as "no" if you would like to review what type of things have been getting a "no" from me and see if that is satisfactory. Looking through the other stuff that is marked as "no" makes me think that maybe I should have reviewed the current "yes"es and "no"es before starting in on the "unknown"es. There are a few that have been marked "no" that I would mark "yes" and add a note that they require more parts.
Since we are not starting from everything in the "unknown" configuration for review status, it might be helpful for this undertaking if there was another drop down that is visible on the admin combo list, but not the site, that allows us to sign off on who reviewed a combo. I'm not sure how hard it would be to do such a thing, and obviously I don't need it if it is too hard to do. It would just be nice to be able to see which ones were reviewed previously and which ones have been reviewed by someone during this project.
February 4, 2020 9:26 p.m.
Ok, how about a category like "Interaction" that we can mark the "combo" as "no" and use it to denote that there is AN interaction so that it doesn't show on the combo list, but is still marked in the database as something that isn't pure junk.
February 4, 2020 9:28 p.m.
Oh, I guess review=True would be cool too as long as it doesn't show on the combo lists. I guess it is just a matter of which drop down we use to denote that it isn't a combo, but isn't junk. I just realized that our two solutions were the same. I got too hung up on yes/no on the review status that I didn't think of putting the third thing there.
(I do like it being in "category" better. But whichever is easier to implement and sort for your purposes.)
February 4, 2020 9:37 p.m.
Keep in mind that flagging something as anything doesn't actually remove it from being visible on the card page or combo list. It has to be deleted for that to happen.
Check these two links to see this.
I would also like to see who uploads the combos.
Gidgetimer note that there are two ways to upload a combo. Either by doing the CARDNAME + CARDNAME syntax which just makes a new one and anyone can do this, or the suggest button in a card page right above the combo list that only upgraded users can see, but lets the user add in a description/category. Everything that is labelled "autocomplete" is done by the CARDNAME + CARDNAME syntax.
We were also strict in the early days of the combase, only things that were fully completed were to be accepted. My plans to accept incomplete combos were to only come to fruition when I had the time to add in the tagging system (something cubetutor pioneered and scryfall inherited) to generate an option in the combo that was anything that complied with that tag. That tagging system got put in the backburner as more important systems were necessary at the time (variations system, alters system, promo system etc).
February 4, 2020 9:53 p.m. Edited.
Ohhhh, I thought yehGo said that as they got marked as "no" they disappeared from card pages. Well I need to change the few that I have used my little codes on to be more clear.
February 4, 2020 10:04 p.m.
i added two new options
i guess we kinda don't need the review status since if it was given a category, it was reviewed. but you can continue to do whatever works, i just need to separate garbage from the simpler interactions
also, they don't show on card detail
February 4, 2020 10:04 p.m. Edited.
yeaGO The card pages now show only combos that have been reviewed. IE, all the ones that have a review status of "unknown" have disappeared. The ones with the review status of no or yes are visible. The review status of "no" should not be visible on the site as well. I think also the unknown ones should also be visible, so that we can go through cards that shouldn't have combos at all and easily change their status.
February 4, 2020 10:33 p.m.
Yes, I have that button. I have found it easier to use the admin combo page though. Since all of the combos need reviewed anyhow it is more convenient for me to just look at the entire list instead of clicking through different card pages to find them.
February 4, 2020 10:56 p.m.
So Gidgetimer, in an earlier message you noted that maybe we should start with the current yes's and no's and I'm inclined to agree. I saw a couple no's that were definitely yes's or... almost yes's.
What's the plan for almost combos then? For example, something that requires two particular components and a third component that can be filled by a number of cards? For example, a combo that requires Card A + Card B + (any sac outlet)?
February 5, 2020 9:26 a.m.
My guideline so fas has been "does this provide additional value compared to how these cards would work with any other". If yes, I mark reviewed as "yes" and pick "Synergy", "Lock", or "Infinite" as the category. If no, I mark reviewed as "no" and categorize it as "Interaction" if the cards have any interaction and "Garbage" if they don't interact in any way (beyond "A" is an aura that can enchant "B" Because Wild Growth + Plains is garbage as a combo).
Most of the A + B + (sac outlet/mana combo/etc.) rise to the level of "synergy" at least without the third piece and I have marked them as synergies and then made a note in the description "becomes a(n) (infinite/lock) with (sac outlet/mana combo/etc.)"
I have put a pause on doing any more until we can hammer out if this is an acceptable system and what the average user can see when. I used my "proposed rejection codes" on a few and I am trying to figure out if I need to fix those or if it is the intent to hide "no" review codes until they can be double checked by whomever is going to be the final curating authority.
February 5, 2020 4:27 p.m.
i think that what you have laid out is fine. it will allow me to separate things for my own uses if i need to.
February 5, 2020 4:29 p.m.
Makes sense to me. I'm going to start going through No's, then going through yes's, before starting on the unknowns I think.
February 5, 2020 9:28 p.m.
Nemesis, do you have discord or something so that we can coordinate so that we aren't both going over the same combos while we are checking the ones that already have a disposition on "reviewed"?
If you have a discord I can make a server or if the admins would like to give us a text channel in the official T/O discord that would be cool. If not, I'm sure we can figure something out. Right now I'm just going to review all of the ones that already have a disposition going back to October 2019 and then start working my way back on ones that don't have a disposition. So, you can skip anything from that era whenever you are working.
February 7, 2020 6:38 p.m.
February 8, 2020 2:11 p.m.
: The only website tab I see is "website questions" and this didn't seem to fit into that or really any other channel. That is why I presented the option of "if the admins would like to give us a text channel in the official T/O discord that would be cool".
yeaGO: Thank you. Also, the problem that Femme_Fatale raised in comment 36 persists. Both reviewed status of "yes" and "no" are visible on the card pages.