Thanks for the report!
Yesterday afternoon we deployed an update to the site with a new video ad provider. This should be more accessible to those on mobile devices when you want to close it. If there are any issues, we'll get them ironed out!
I'm locking this thread because we already have a similar one for mobile.https://outof.cards/forums/out-of-cards/site-feedback-ideas/8296-please-no-video-ads-for-mobile
I've already put a request in to see what we can do about the X, just waiting to hear back.
I pushed out a fix for this earlier today. Deck pages are not properly indicating which brawl a deck is for, that needs to be changed too, but we can at least search for decks in the recent brawl!
I've pushed out a deploy that should resolve issues with comment jumps. Let me know if you run into any further issues with them after this point in time.
Quote From anchorm4nAh thanks, now I get it. Do you still need them?
Ah thanks, now I get it. Do you still need them?
Sinti has provided me with a couple of samples I need to investigate, but yes, yes, yes. Always, always, always provide examples when there are problems unless we tell people to stop submitting them =
Quote From frenzyExample 1On the deck of lunacy discussion thread: https://outof.cards/forums/hearthstone/card-discussion/6470-new-mage-spell-deck-of-lunacyThere are, at time of this comment, 59 replies - ie 3 pages.On the bread crumb page navigator ( first, 1, 2, 3, last ), the links go toa) On first page: X, X, 2, 3, 2 (expected: X, X, 2, 3, 3)b) On last page: 2, 1, 2, X, X (expected: 1, 1, 2, X, X) Example 2On the deck discussion group level: https://outof.cards/forums/hearthstone/card-discussionThere are 59 pages (spoooooky!), just below the stickies, the page navigator, from page 1, links to: X, X, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2Whereas expected is probably more like: X, X, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 59
On the deck of lunacy discussion thread: https://outof.cards/forums/hearthstone/card-discussion/6470-new-mage-spell-deck-of-lunacy
There are, at time of this comment, 59 replies - ie 3 pages.
On the bread crumb page navigator ( first, 1, 2, 3, last ), the links go to
a) On first page: X, X, 2, 3, 2 (expected: X, X, 2, 3, 3)
b) On last page: 2, 1, 2, X, X (expected: 1, 1, 2, X, X)
On the deck discussion group level: https://outof.cards/forums/hearthstone/card-discussion
There are 59 pages (spoooooky!), just below the stickies, the page navigator, from page 1, links to: X, X, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2
Whereas expected is probably more like: X, X, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 59
I think you may not be understanding how the pagination works, though please do correct me if I'm wrong.
The number that appears in the pagination square will always be the exact same as the page number that is in the link.
For myself, I see the following when visiting the card discussion forum for hearthstone:
As expected, they link as follows ([display in square] URL page number)
When I got to page 10 of the card discussion forum, I get this
And works as expected:
I do want to point out for absolute clarity that the < and > arrows will only ever go one page at a time. The code itself for the pagination template shows that every numbered square outputs the exact same number in the page id of the url.
You can right-click (or similar on mobile) and copy the link address to get a link to submit.
A link that doesn't work is kinda what I would have liked :P
Giving a link to an example is more helpful than telling me where it is because it is something that can be immediately acted upon and doesn't require me searching for the thread and the comment in question.
Whenever links can be included in a bug report, do it!
Could you provide me with an exact example of where this is happening, please? Thanks!
The original goal was to create a system on the site that would require a Battle.net account, authenticated through the Blizzard API, attached to your profile so that there'd be no chance anyone on an internal blacklist could trade quests at all. There was a lot more to it though and it just never got done because it simply wasn't a priority.
A sort of site reputation was conceptualized long before Out of Cards was even built! There are many bits and pieces that I'd like to see in such a system to make it really rock solid so it's a project that has been on the back burner.
There are also additional ways I think we could better promote each other and showcase our appreciation - another core community feature that we could use. Think Snowballs, but not pelting each other in the face :D
You can perform a reset of your own collection by visiting your collection management page.
This will send an empty collection to our server to delete your existing one.
No plans to move the forums on the homepage or game portal pages as it would add even more vertical scrolling to get to the news content.
We won't be adding rarity colors to name text, it just kinda looks like vomit and anyone else generating similar images isn't doing it as well (I assume for similar reasons).
The biggest issue with having the card images stand out more is it gets a bit busy. There were many iterations of these images with different levels of opacity. Some cards look really good with a brighter look, but others not as much. The current version is what I would consider being a good overall compromise.
Several cards don't even look great alone because crops aren't even good. Some art just can't be cropped good to fit in a small line like that, you see this even in the in-game collection manager. You've also got spells that aren't even immediately identifiable by image since you aren't used to seeing them always since they don't sit on the in-game field. There's a lot of reasons why crops aren't great and are really only there to break things up a bit and make the images less dull.
I'm glad everyone without premium enjoyed our premium trial today!
I believe all outstanding issues with premium have been fixed at this point (other than the annoying one that resets your profile cosmetics every month). The last one with everyone having premium was an oversight a simple conditional check fixed.
It has been a long day.
You should have Premium. I do think I know what's up though.
You posted this when some bad code was deployed on the site that changed how we handled the premium cache. It has since been resolved, can you confirm that you are a premium member still?
Looking into this.
Not pushing anything else out today so here's our changelog.
A special thanks NerdyMcNerd for pointing out I've been putting 2020 in the titles. Gotta love a fantastic copy-paste job!
Deployed code to fix issues with threads not updating.