{"ops":[{"insert":"Currently, when a deck goes past 200some cards, site performance drops considerably. With this proposed feature, we would develop a different way of storing deck data for those specifically looking to create these expansive lists. Potential uses include Cubes, virtual trade binders, and other collection management. \n\nIf this proposed feature is of interest to you, give the thread a thumbs-up and leave your thoughts below! User interest in each feature will help us prioritize in development.\n"}]}
316
{"ops":[{"insert":"I only recently started using the site in the last few months. I only play and build commander decks and cubes. \n\nThis added support would be of great help to me. From the commander perspective when I first start building a deck I often add 200+ cards to a list before I start refining the deck list down to the final 100. At which points its not uncommon for me to have a LARGE maybe board as well. Another use case is that I have decks with niche focuses where I use the maybe board as a way to keep a list of card that support the overall deck. Admittedly this could be a card package but I haven't dabbled with that feature yet.\n\nAs for supporting lists large enough to be a cube this would be a huge boon, Archidekt's unique way of organizing cards and displaying information makes it a more useful tool to me when it comes to maintaining and building a cube. Cube Cobra is great for when it comes to maintaining an already established list, and collecting draft data, and all the other stuff cube managers need, but I find the list management part of Archidekt more useful.\n"}]}
7
{"ops":[{"insert":"I'm actually using it for a Cube as well at the moment and on mobile as well. It would be a great boon performance wise for me to use Archidekt for Cube with more ease. It totally gets my vote.\n"}]}
3
{"ops":[{"insert":"Being able to set rules with syntax searches would be an incredible feature! So just like with commander when you violate the rule it highlights it red. You could add a rule like every card has to be mythic and it would highlight the card if it hit a failure\n"}]}
2
{"ops":[{"insert":"Yes, I run into this slow down on most of my decks because I like to list alternative options to cards: whether that is because of budget, style of play, or power level.\n"}]}
1
{"ops":[{"insert":"having large lists not tank performance would be nice for some of the larger conglomeration lists I have that I use for deckbuilding..\n"}]}
1
{"ops":[{"insert":"I would love this feature!\n"}]}
0
{"ops":[{"insert":"Yes i'd love this\n"}]}
0
{"ops":[{"insert":"Additional potential use: shopping list\n"}]}
0