Alphabetized the cards?

[jallenw]

I know that many of us have gotten used to finding Alphatoxin, Bonewall, and Arsenic at the end of the card list, but I'm thinking about the future of elements.  Years from now, when there are 40+ cards available for each element, it will be annoying to search through the cards that are disorganized. 

I'm wondering if the card lists should be alphabetized, so that it is easier to find cards.

I know that it would be an inconvenient change for us at first, but after a few days we would get used to it.

Peace,
Jallen

[Delreich]

I guess I'm the first to vote no.

I can see that the current sorting is less than optimal, but I don't see how the name of a card is a better sort key than the age of it.
I'd rather see sorting by type and something, maybe cost or strength. Pillars first, then spells/critters/perms in some order, sorted according to whatever internally.

[Kameda]

I guess it could be first pillars, then permanents, then creatures and then spells. All in alphabetical order in their groups.
It would really be better when we have a lot of cards to search.

[Ashebrethafe]

I guess I'm the first to vote no.

I can see that the current sorting is less than optimal, but I don't see how the name of a card is a better sort key than the age of it.
I'd rather see sorting by type and something, maybe cost or strength. Pillars first, then spells/critters/perms in some order, sorted according to whatever internally.

Name is a better sort key because you can look at an unsorted group of cards and tell which should come first -- there's no way to see a card's age, not even by mousing over it in the bazaar.

My preferred sort criteria would be:

• Element. This is currently the second sort criterion, after basic/upped. Since it's already possible to tell upped cards from basic cards by their frame, I don't feel they need to be separated.
• Old/new. Not all cards in the order they were introduced, but if exactly one of two cards was added in the last release, the other card should come first. This makes it easier to add the new cards to the deck you had in the previous version. (If the last release didn't add any cards, this criterion doesn't change the order, as all the cards are "old.")
• Sell price of the basic card, lowest to highest. No need to have a special rule to put pillars first, as they're already the cheapest cards. (This is the same order as buy price, except it accounts for rares, which don't have a buy price.) Fixed to the basic card because the first copy of a card you get will most likely be basic, and upgrading cards shouldn't change their order.
• Name of the basic card, A to Z. The sort order needs to be a total order (there are cards of the same element that have the same cost), and name is the easiest way to tell cards apart (you don't even have to mouse over them).
• Basic/upped. With this being the last criterion, you can still see how many basic and upped copies you have of each card (either in your deck or your collection), and it's also easier to see the total number of copies (and in the case of the deck, how close you are to the limit of six).

[jallenw]

In a perfect world, we could have little buttons that sort our cards in many different ways including, but not limited to, the following:

Price (buy and sell, highest to lowest, lowest to highest)
Alphabetically
Casting Cost
Age
Rarity
Type

However, that is quite a project, and I don't see it happening right away or all at once if at all.  Simply changing the order to Alphabetically seems like a simple change, and it would make sense to implement it first, so that people will get used to it and we can avoid being annoyed by the change at a later date.

Just my 2 cents,
Jallen

[the dictator]

I think I would prefer selling first on type, let's say pillars first, then creatures, spells, permanents, rares.
And then on (casting) cost

For fire that would be on type and the on electrum cost to buy:
Fire pillar
Ash eater
Fire spirit
Lava golem
Phoenix
Crimson dragon
Deflagration
Fire bolt
Rage potion
Immolation
Rain of fire
Firewall

Or on type and on quantum cost to use:
Fire pillar
Ash eater
Fire spirit
Lava golem
Phoenix
Crimson dragon
Immolation
Deflagration
Fire bolt
Rage potion
Rain of fire
Firewall

The only difference between them is the place of immolation, because it is an expensive card, but free to use.

And upgraded cards should be placed directly after their unupgraded versions.

This combination would seem most logical to me.

[AnoverX]

In a perfect world, we could have little buttons that sort our cards in many different ways including, but not limited to, the following:

Price (buy and sell, highest to lowest, lowest to highest)
Alphabetically
Casting Cost
Age
Rarity
Type

that sounds really good

[Scaredgirl]

In a perfect world, we could have little buttons that sort our cards in many different ways including, but not limited to, the following:

Price (buy and sell, highest to lowest, lowest to highest)
Alphabetically
Casting Cost
Age
Rarity
Type

This.

Or if it's not possible, then alphabetized list.

Frankly I don't know how anyone could be against it really. Alphabetizing is hands down the best way of listing things because people look for cards based on their name.

[Delreich]

[...] people look for cards based on their name.

Only people who know the name of the card they are looking for. By the time they know the name they've probably learned to recognize the top portion of the card anyway.

Sorting by category and strength/cost makes far more sense from a new player perspective.
If you know that pillars are first, you can find those easily for all elements even if you don't know the name.
If creatures are sorted by strength/cost, you know that the "better" more expensive ones come later on the list.