Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
 Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 10:29 |
 
|
It is a great thing that players just don't teleport to the spot they are going.
But this change also makes games take considerably longer time, at least i feel like it.
I think that a 100ms delay instead of the 200ms could be good. That way you wouldn't have to wait as long for the players to move. With the 200ms one could almost click faster than using automove. |
|
|
Calthor
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 10:41 |
|
It can be slightly faster, yes, although it doesn't really bother me. |
|
|
On1
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 10:47 |
|
100-150ms imo  |
|
|
DonTomaso
Joined: Feb 20, 2005
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 10:55 |
|
Agreed.
I was unaware of the change in speed settings, and thought it was lagging.
A bit faster would be nice. |
_________________
====================================
Be careful, my common sense is tingling! |
|
Ehlers
Joined: Jun 26, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 11:07 |
|
How about instead that the coach can set the speed of auto moves?
Say the upper limit is 150ms or something like that.
Some coaches might not care about the teleporting and some want to see the players move.
So each coach assign a speed of their auto move. The one coach speed that is closet to 150ms, set the overall speed of the auto move of the game.
example
So when two coaches have 0ms set to their auto move, both play at that speed.
One coach set 100ms and the other set 150ms, so the auto move speed is 150ms.
Just a random thought to try to please most people |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 11:28 |
|
Rule 1 of the client:
Make it as cool as possible.
Rule 1 to help Kalimar:
Don't make things unnecessarily complicated.
When they conflict, I think the latter should take precedence, really. At least until we have a 100% working FFB client.
After that, all subsequent releases should address usability, but till then, I see no reason to load up on Kalimar. |
_________________
 |
|
nazgob
Joined: Oct 31, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 11:42 |
|
I see what youre saying....
We wait for now, and then we get to make Klimar's life uneccesarily complicated later?  |
|
|
Ancre
Joined: Aug 17, 2009
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 11:45 |
|
I also thought it was my computer who was slow ! I'd like it to be slightly faster too, but yeah, it's a minor point |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 11:48 |
|
| nazgob wrote: | I see what youre saying....
We wait for now, and then we get to make Klimar's life uneccesarily complicated later? |
Exactly.
The point being that if the client is 100% working, then he's entitled to say no to our greedy requests. If we flood him with requests before it is done, there's a higher and higher chance that the ideal 100% will be never reached (or at least posponed a lot).
After all, any given man, even as awesome as Kalimar, has a finite amount of energy, time and patience, especially when dealing with a free and voluntary job. Better to exploit his patience and time to get an ugly 100% working client, than a 95% beautiful one. (of course I'm exaggerating). |
_________________
|
|
Optihut
Joined: Dec 16, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 12:25 |
|
| JanMattys wrote: | Exactly.
The point being that if the client is 100% working, then he's entitled to say no to our greedy requests. If we flood him with requests before it is done, there's a higher and higher chance that the ideal 100% will be never reached (or at least posponed a lot). |
I disagree - feedback should be given and of course Kalimar will then assign a low priority to a cosmetic change. Thus it will not impact the completion of more severe issues. These things need to be mentioned, though, as a low priority is still preferable to not being aware of a problem. |
|
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 12:41 |
|
Let me clarify.
I'm not saying that pointing out that "instant teleport" is bad is wrong.
I'm not saying that proposing a shorter time delay is wrong.
I'm saying that if we let our wildest dreams go free, Kalimar will soon be overwhelmed by requests that make sense but are impractical to implement. The implementation of a "preferred delay" for automoving on each player's side sounded a tad too much on the "unnecessary feature" side.
The point I was trying to get across was about thinking twice before putting ideas into Kalimar's to do list, not about shutting the hell up until Kalimar has done it all without any feedback.
To sum it up: the line between providing feedback and letting our dreams loose on the poor guy is thin. Before suggesting something, we should at least think about what side of the line we probably are, and in case censor ourself to avoid putting too much of a burden of expectations on Kalimar.
Better? |
_________________
|
|
maysrill
Joined: Dec 29, 2008
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 13:07 |
|
I was actually a fan of the teleporting. If we need to add in a delay, could someone just watch Woodstock play, and time his moves? To me, that's the ideal speed we should all strive for |
_________________
Author of Firehurler (Twinborn Trilogy Book #1), Aethersmith (Book #2), Sourcethief (Book #3) |
|
JanMattys
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 13:13 |
|
| maysrill wrote: | | I was actually a fan of the teleporting. If we need to add in a delay, could someone just watch Woodstock play, and time his moves? To me, that's the ideal speed we should all strive for |
Doable.
Woodstock is a bot anyway, and intellectual property of Christer.
I think BigC could just make an exception and hand over the Woodstock code to Kalimar. |
_________________
|
|
Lakrillo
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 13:28 |
|
Reason for this post was that Kalimar implemented the delay already, and implementing that is way much more job than just changing the time of the delay when it already is in place.
I know that if i coded something like this, i would want feedback on the things that was more up to each ones taste and not written in the rules.
So far all that have posted in this thread is active playtesters that have tried to help Kalimar out by posting bugreports to finish the client and everyone agrees on that the delay could be a little shorter than it is now.
I bet that Woodstocks delay is about 100-150 ms.
I judge my post as on the right line of feedback and overwhelming demands. |
|
|
Kalimar
Joined: Sep 22, 2006
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2010 - 15:18 |
|
Delay feedback is fine, don't worry. Will decrease to 150 in the next release. Currently no plans to make it a user setting, however. There is such a thing as too many options.
@JanMattys: awfully kind of you to jump to my defense, but if I couldn't properly handle user requests I couldn't survive in my day-to-day job, actually... |
|
|
|
|
Cindy fumbling after...
Search
