It would be nice if we could have improved search functions:
- Boolean operators - example “empowered” and “to yellow”
- search traits / temperances specifically
- search weapon and troop
- trait filters
- multiple select filters
7 Likes
Trait search is definitely needed (traits ARE included when searching by text, but this is not good enough in various cases).
1 Like
Searching troop by name only would be nice.
Because when you type in “Greed” and get every troop that has “Greedy” is annoying. There’s plenty of other examples, but that one sticks out.
Same goes for weapons. If I type in “darkstorm” I want it to give me all weapons with the “Dark” trait as well - and not give me weapons that just have the word “dark” in it somewhere in the flavor text.
2 Likes
If you type in hoard you get only 3 returns. Search doesn’t need to be refined, you just have to know how to use it just like most search engines.
1 Like
I agree! The greed one is really annoying and sorting by name and then going to G and then R takes forever too. The poster below you had a great workaround suggestion to bandaid this specific problem but it doesn’t really fix the underlying problem.
1 Like
That is a great workaround, thanks for sharing. I strongly disagree regarding the search functionality remaining as is though.
The purpose of this thread is to provide game feedback and improvements. This is a commonly known area for improvement. There are ~1,300 troops and ~500 weapons. Players should not be expected to know all or even the majority of these to that granular of level. Players also don’t know what they don’t know and a game’s user interface should be relatively easy to operate - the challenge should be in the game play itself.
For you to have suggested that you would have had to know the troop well enough to know it’s spell name was “treasure hoard”, that you could search for that specifically, and that that would return the least hits of the various ways you could search for it. My work around was Xing all but green and purple and searching Greed or Omen. But admittedly yours is easier and more efficient.
1 Like
Yeah, exactly. I have workarounds to find Greed easily similar to what they suggested but it’s silly that you can’t just look up by name.
I usually type in “gain gold equal” and it comes up. But still, underlying issue as you mentioned.
You literally always have to know what to search. How do you find Greed if you can’t remember what its name is or exactly what it does. Just type in “gold”?
I think what you’re asking is to provide a full on Google search function. That isn’t going to happen and isn’t even a possibiltiy. You cant ever type in vague ideas as to what you’re looking for if you don’t alrady know what you’re looking for.
As is true for all search functions. Narrow your results. Select a specific color, weapon type, spell effect, kingdom, rarity or whatever and go from there
I’m literaly only asking to search for a troop by name. You’re reaching for the stars over here assuming I want a full algorithmic search.
1 Like
You can search for Greed by name. It just so happens that theres also a trait with that word in it and another troop that has Greed in its name. Refine your searches better.
Initial post is asking for boolean operators
That’s known as “whole word search” and yes it would be nice to have … as an option, of course. Because partial search has its own usecases too. e.g. when it’s Bounty weekend I love that I don’t have to fully type out “bountyhunter” when just “bounty” is enough to get relevant results. (I could probably reduce the search query to just “tyh” and it’d still work…)
Also, speaking from some personal experience here building a search algorithm that supports Boolean operators is HARD, not the least reason being that “and” typically takes priority over “or” which is often COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to narrowing a search (i.e. a search query of “x and y or z” is by default processed as “(x and y) or z” when “x and (y or z)” would produce narrower / often better results).
2 Likes
Original post is not asking for Google, just more filters and options. Boolean is a common function but not necessary to achieve the means above. For example being able to add an additional search field so I can search “empow” and then something else within like a specific trait or extra turn. Broadening the search to weapon traits so you don’t have to say the trait name (similar to how troops works).
I agree you have to know something about the thing you’re searching for to a degree. But if you are trying to look for new options you need to be able to refine and expand the net.
That’s cool / good to know. I think even just introducing more filters and the ability to add more search fields would help. Basically I want to be able to do something like who has a trait that drains mana, can I isolate to 4+ matches vs. Color? And within that subset, who can do XYZ? (Just another example) - drain mana also wouldn’t cover off spirit gems.
So if they had a trait filter like they do the spell, that would help a lot.
What you are asking for is exactly boolean operators. You’re just not inputting the and/or part yourself
Thanks for the explanation.
True, but it makes it a bit easier to program. It was just a suggestion if Boolean text was too difficult.
Also, Boolean operators are not Google’s defining trait. They are common in most search functionalities. No where in the post or comments did anyone say they want vague searching and it figured out what you mean. The examples above are Boolean and partial or whole phrase searching and the ability to target specific fields of their database.
You can already search for phrases
I never said you couldn’t and it appears you are missing the point. Also, the purpose of this thread is to suggest game feedback and improvements - which this is. Not sure why you’re arguing the validity rather than supporting progress.