Deck Builder Feature Suggestion

[r0cknes]

I was thinking as I was looking at some decks I have made in Lackey. If there is one frustrating part of the deck editor for me it would be no "OR" stipulation for searching for cards. I will give an example.

Say I am searching for cards in lotr lcg to put into my deck. If I want to look at all my options for a certain type of card say a hero card. I would like to see all the hero cards and include only the heros from the core, and three of the expansions. Here is what I purpose:

SET is (Here is where the "OR" comes in) Core OR OTD OR CATC OR HFG.

I think this feature would greatly diversify the deck builder for lackey. Maybe this is already a feature, and I haven't seen it.

[cyberneticpony]

I was thinking as I was looking at some decks I have made in Lackey. If there is one frustrating part of the deck editor for me it would be no "OR" stipulation for searching for cards. I will give an example.

Say I am searching for cards in lotr lcg to put into my deck. If I want to look at all my options for a certain type of card say a hero card. I would like to see all the hero cards and include only the heros from the core, and three of the expansions. Here is what I purpose:

SET is (Here is where the "OR" comes in) Core OR OTD OR CATC OR HFG.

I think this feature would greatly diversify the deck builder for lackey. Maybe this is already a feature, and I haven't seen it.

Any chance you could use "doesn't contain" instead, or will that take too long? IF alphabet = "A,B,C,D,E" then NOT A AND NOT B is equal to C OR D OR E.

[magekirbys]

I've asked for an OR feature a while back myself and Trevor seems adamant about the thought that it will be 'way too complex' for our little heads to get used to. If you somehow manage to convince him to add it in, more power to you but for now you'll have to do it the long way and pray you have enough slots.

[r0cknes]

Yes you could use the doesn't contain feature, but it is a tedious process when dealing with the incredible volume of sets in card games now.

I don't expect this feature right away, nor do I expect any feature I suggest right away, but Trevor doesn't know what we want unless we tell him right?

I am sure this is a very complex string of code he would need to make up for this, but it could reduce the need for so many stipulation slots on the left of the interface, thus making it more visually appealing.

I don't know maybe it is not worth it. I am going to use lackey either way because it is awesome, but this feature would be nice down the line.

[Trevor]

I've asked for an OR feature a while back myself and Trevor seems adamant about the thought that it will be 'way too complex' for our little heads to get used to. If you somehow manage to convince him to add it in, more power to you but for now you'll have to do it the long way and pray you have enough slots.

I don't recall ever saying anything to that effect and I've never thought that. Perhaps you are confusing something I said in regard to a specific suggestion of yours about how it could work.

I plan on improving the filters. I want to add more complicated filters, as well as the ability to save filters. I just have been working on more important things in the interim.

The code aspect isn't that tricky. I'm more stumped on exactly what the interface would look like. I need some time to figure out an elegant design. This essentially would be a whole redesign of the current filter layout, though the underlying search functions would still be the same.

[angelkin]

Trevor, you do amazing work!  I'd love to see the ability to save filters!