Please Consider Open All for Boxes

dupeks · June 2017

It's been suggested before, but with today's crazy event kickoff I'm immediately reminded.

Please consider adding an "Open All" option to boxes.

Or please consider adding an "Open X" option that brings up a popup slider that lets me open up to 100 at a time. I'd settle for that.

Please comment politely and respectfully supporting this notion if you agree that this should be a priority for the next QoL release.

kemi1984 · June 2017

It should, just like making the LS bags BTA so they can be freely move around.

I'm tired of opening the box and sending the loot via the shared bank...

I will, again, ask for a sort button for a bank UI + enabling us to choose into which tab items will go with double clicking while having our bank and inventory opened.

Now, we're sending them only into our personal bank, I would like to have a choice to send it to the shared bank as well.

Game needs content, that's the 1st priority to have it running, but QOL is in dire need of improving as well.

pitshade · June 2017

+1 BtA leadership boxes and Open All

Now that they have replaced the Campaign UI and are working on the one for Quests, a revamp to the professions UI is long overdue. Standardize button and window sizes. Make claim all, repeat task, x3 task buttons... Eliminate the focus-stealing Result popup. Even if they didn't rework the tasks themselves, it would be a massive QoL improvement for players who do professions.

beckylunatic · June 2017

As I have said many times before, NOT having this as a feature only punishes the joints and hardware of genuine human players, and doesn't hinder bots in the slightest.

@nitocris83 Please tell them to be nicer to our frail bodies. I have about 30,000 boxes to open. This is... unpleasant.

plasticbat · June 2017

I already killed one gaming mouse. Since I already set up a XP gear set (in addition to combat gear set), I come up with an idea ...... a cheap openbox mouse. It can't save my joint but it may save my good mouse.

nameexpired · June 2017

dupeks said:
It's been suggested before, but with today's crazy event kickoff I'm immediately reminded.

Please consider adding an "Open All" option to boxes.

Or please consider adding an "Open X" option that brings up a popup slider that lets me open up to 100 at a time. I'd settle for that.

Please comment politely and respectfully supporting this notion if you agree that this should be a priority for the next QoL release.

Though I'd like to see this option I guess they'd rather auto-open all boxes so we need more inventory space.
It would be a reasonable Cryptic Perfectworld solution.

You'd get what you ask for but not what you wanted

emilemo · June 2017

YES, please! Open all boxes of all kinds. My alts have hundreds of stacked RP packs from leadership, I can litereally hear my mouse scream in agony when I start opening those.

fizgigtiznalkie · June 2017

This would be great. I like the slider idea that goes to like 100 or 50, that way QMs don't flood you with 90000 green unidentified equipment.

litaaers · June 2017

What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!

micky1p00 · June 2017

litaaers said:
What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!

From where your server flooding assumptions? One server command to open all stacked items in a specific stack (item_id) will take 1/stack_size of the bandwidth. Meaning for a stack of 999 items, open all command will need 1/999 of the bandwidth as compared to a client sending the open commands 1by1.
Also a server can queue the actual database operations for better efficiency and load, because it knows ahead of time what will be required of it. This is even without the benefits of caching that you will get from batch commands.

Maybe we should leave the technical assumptions to the devs and not presume to speak for them and the game architecture ?

dupeks · June 2017

litaaers said:
What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!

Those are relevant concerns (server spam, and overflow).

About server spam: So how long does it take you to open 100 by hand? I can average quite a few clicks per second, and I'm sending the requests and getting replies 1 at a time for like 20 seconds or so. Wouldn't it be better if they developed an architecture through which you could request to open 100, and the server would send the 100 results in 1 reply instead of 100? Sure it would take some development to make this work, but it would reduce server spam (potentially by a lot), and reduce human hand strain from rapid fire clicking for long stretches.

About overflow: OK, so they would need to have some sort of mechanic for controlling overflow. There could be a variety of ways to solve this. The option to open in batch could be disabled if you have items in overflow. And if you don't, the system could send results back in small batches (let's say 5 or 10 boxes' worth) and stop once items land in overflow.

Nobody is saying that designing a solution is trivial, but the current situation is pretty awful for a variety of reasons. There are definitely better solutions that they could work towards. Did you see the guy posted above that he borked a mouse doing this? So have I. I also managed to hurt myself from clicking too much, where I couldn't work/play for a few days after 2x enchants last year.

The kicker to me is that it would be trivial to set up a script / macro that just clicks for me. But that's not allowed under the ToS. So give me a solution that works that's within the rules.

beckylunatic · June 2017

The game just automatically stops you from opening more boxes and sends an error if you have too much in overflow anyway. I don't see any reason why this would change if you didn't have to click every box individually. The process would stop and tell the user why it stopped. You could clear your overflow and once again tell the system to try to open all the things. It either succeeds or runs into the overflow error and stops again. Repeat until done. Still easier on the human and computer hardware.

ecrana · June 2017

Wait, you guys have to click individually to open every box/bag? You can't just hold the mouse button down and let it flow non-stop like the XB users? That just sounds horrible.

wintersmoke · June 2017

litaaers said:
What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!

Stephen King said it best... "Gettin' old ain't for sissies!"

beckylunatic · June 2017

ecrana#2080 said:
Wait, you guys have to click individually to open every box/bag? You can't just hold the mouse button down and let it flow non-stop like the XB users? That just sounds horrible.

Hah! You may have just identified a rare point where console players have a better UI than PC players.

$^#*%^%!!

micky1p00 · June 2017

beckylunatic said:

ecrana#2080 said:
Wait, you guys have to click individually to open every box/bag? You can't just hold the mouse button down and let it flow non-stop like the XB users? That just sounds horrible.
Hah! You may have just identified a rare point where console players have a better UI than PC players.

$^#*%^%!!

The worst part, if it only had a keyboard shortcut, it would have been easy, just spam/hold they open more and it's ok, but this is a mouse killer.... And one logitech performance mx died on me with the old refinement. And I don't want to see my g700s die too.

beckylunatic · June 2017

Well if they already let console players do this, then all the convoluted logic of "oh, gee, well... they probably don't want opening containers to not involve repeated clicking BECAUSE BOTS so we shouldn't even dare to speak of it" is thrown out the window.

@midnightlight#2361 @uimaven How feasible is to implement a feature on PC to make repeatedly opening containers less awful?

litaaers · June 2017

micky1p00 said:

litaaers said:
What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!
From where your server flooding assumptions? One server command to open all stacked items in a specific stack (item_id) will take 1/stack_size of the bandwidth. Meaning for a stack of 999 items, open all command will need 1/999 of the bandwidth as compared to a client sending the open commands 1by1.
Also a server can queue the actual database operations for better efficiency and load, because it knows ahead of time what will be required of it. This is even without the benefits of caching that you will get from batch commands.

Maybe we should leave the technical assumptions to the devs and not presume to speak for them and the game architecture ?

So you totally dodged my ACTUAL question, and managed to sound ill-informed in the process.

My point was: If it took as long as doing it manually, would you still want it?

As for YOUR assumptions on what is required of the server, can I point out that, if all you were concerned about was bandwidth... well, you're still wrong. But everytime a box is opened, RNG is used, resources are accessed (those cute little pictures that show up on the right of the screen aren't actual magic), and THEN there are checks for: Inventory space, level appropriateness, NEW item ids, etc, etc, etc. When enough of these things happen at once, its called server load.

The More You Know! Knowledge is Power! Go, go gadget Neverwinter!!!

litaaers · June 2017

dupeks said:

litaaers said:
What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!
Those are relevant concerns (server spam, and overflow).

About server spam: So how long does it take you to open 100 by hand? I can average quite a few clicks per second, and I'm sending the requests and getting replies 1 at a time for like 20 seconds or so. Wouldn't it be better if they developed an architecture through which you could request to open 100, and the server would send the 100 results in 1 reply instead of 100? Sure it would take some development to make this work, but it would reduce server spam (potentially by a lot), and reduce human hand strain from rapid fire clicking for long stretches.

About overflow: OK, so they would need to have some sort of mechanic for controlling overflow. There could be a variety of ways to solve this. The option to open in batch could be disabled if you have items in overflow. And if you don't, the system could send results back in small batches (let's say 5 or 10 boxes' worth) and stop once items land in overflow.

Nobody is saying that designing a solution is trivial, but the current situation is pretty awful for a variety of reasons. There are definitely better solutions that they could work towards. Did you see the guy posted above that he borked a mouse doing this? So have I. I also managed to hurt myself from clicking too much, where I couldn't work/play for a few days after 2x enchants last year.

The kicker to me is that it would be trivial to set up a script / macro that just clicks for me. But that's not allowed under the ToS. So give me a solution that works that's within the rules.

I fully agree with your points. I am unsure if people were reading my initial comment with a touch of sarcasm or not, but it was a straight question. With the request (as was) it would be 'Click open all, and work with the current mechanism'

Your clarifications (although they would require additional coding) would make this more workable. Basically, press button, go away and do 100 things, come back with 1 results window, handle inventory/overflow.

micky1p00 · June 2017

litaaers said:

micky1p00 said:

litaaers said:
What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!
From where your server flooding assumptions? One server command to open all stacked items in a specific stack (item_id) will take 1/stack_size of the bandwidth. Meaning for a stack of 999 items, open all command will need 1/999 of the bandwidth as compared to a client sending the open commands 1by1.
Also a server can queue the actual database operations for better efficiency and load, because it knows ahead of time what will be required of it. This is even without the benefits of caching that you will get from batch commands.

Maybe we should leave the technical assumptions to the devs and not presume to speak for them and the game architecture ?
So you totally dodged my ACTUAL question, and managed to sound ill-informed in the process.

My point was: If it took as long as doing it manually, would you still want it?

As for YOUR assumptions on what is required of the server, can I point out that, if all you were concerned about was bandwidth... well, you're still wrong. But everytime a box is opened, RNG is used, resources are accessed (those cute little pictures that show up on the right of the screen aren't actual magic), and THEN there are checks for: Inventory space, level appropriateness, NEW item ids, etc, etc, etc. When enough of these things happen at once, its called server load.

The More You Know! Knowledge is Power! Go, go gadget Neverwinter!!!

And where I'm ill-informed? You question is irrelevant. You make incorrect assumptions and ask question that are not yours to make. Unless you are Cryptic employee as a system designer or database designer ?

To the point, In both cases of doing it manually or the batch operation the worst case number of checks is the same. You can't flood the server with a batch command any worse than sending the commands one by one. But you can always gain. A single batch command is not only takes the 1/n of the bandwidth, but also can be easily optimized to take the 1/n the database searches. non-sql database will have to make one search and load instead of N, an SQL database, can do one index traversal to get all the needed inventory space restriction, in one transaction and make the commits. Instead of N lookup operations just for the amount of inventory you have.
Same with assigning ids where you have sequential locked operation with in a cash lock vs N independent operations.

In this aspect, It's more efficient to know all the needed operations when scheduling them or committing them instead of being send one command at a time.
Most servers are restricted by the underlying hardware I/O limit, so the more you can do with less access the more you can do overall.

RNG is a memory array access, which is also optimized for repeated access just for the fact it sits in an N-way-associative hardware cache.

Those cute little images are client side. No server resources are accessed for those. Yes what else?

So please, do point out where I'm ill informed.. To me it looks like it's you who lack basic understanding of how things work. But before you start to complain, no one asked for faster time overall, people asked for less human commands to input -> less clicks.

So don't tell me I'm wrong, point where I'm wrong. Still waiting to read where a batch operation is not shorter than N operation in terms of bandwidth.

dupeks · June 2017

litaaers said:

dupeks said:

litaaers said:
What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!
Those are relevant concerns (server spam, and overflow).

About server spam: So how long does it take you to open 100 by hand? I can average quite a few clicks per second, and I'm sending the requests and getting replies 1 at a time for like 20 seconds or so. Wouldn't it be better if they developed an architecture through which you could request to open 100, and the server would send the 100 results in 1 reply instead of 100? Sure it would take some development to make this work, but it would reduce server spam (potentially by a lot), and reduce human hand strain from rapid fire clicking for long stretches.

About overflow: OK, so they would need to have some sort of mechanic for controlling overflow. There could be a variety of ways to solve this. The option to open in batch could be disabled if you have items in overflow. And if you don't, the system could send results back in small batches (let's say 5 or 10 boxes' worth) and stop once items land in overflow.

Nobody is saying that designing a solution is trivial, but the current situation is pretty awful for a variety of reasons. There are definitely better solutions that they could work towards. Did you see the guy posted above that he borked a mouse doing this? So have I. I also managed to hurt myself from clicking too much, where I couldn't work/play for a few days after 2x enchants last year.

The kicker to me is that it would be trivial to set up a script / macro that just clicks for me. But that's not allowed under the ToS. So give me a solution that works that's within the rules.
I fully agree with your points. I am unsure if people were reading my initial comment with a touch of sarcasm or not, but it was a straight question. With the request (as was) it would be 'Click open all, and work with the current mechanism'

Your clarifications (although they would require additional coding) would make this more workable. Basically, press button, go away and do 100 things, come back with 1 results window, handle inventory/overflow.

Yup that's more or less what I was aiming for.

In my profession, I sometimes supervise / manage software development projects, so have just enough understanding to make a fool of myself by expressing some opinions

But the gist of it is that they current system is pretty likely very inefficient for both players and servers. Like you said, each time a box is opened it has to do a bunch of stuff (receive a request from you to open the box, check you actually have the box, roll a die, look up the results, and send them back to you). And after every click, all of those steps are repeated. I'm pretty confident that if the system knew ahead of time "I'm gonna have to do this 100 times for this knucklehead" it could be rewritten to do a few of those things more efficiently (especially the network communication, but even maybe the die rolling, table lookups, or stuff that I don't even know it's doing)

It might be waaay more efficient. I'd speculate it's also pretty likely that the biggest "bottleneck" in the current process is either the physical click speed (or put another way: the time wasted between clicks), an artificial limit that they put up to prevent the server from being overloaded with the "doing a bunch of stuff", or network communication. In this case again, knowing "I'm gonna have to do this 100 times for this knucklehead" can allow some things to be rewritten to allow the server to allocate resources more effectively, and to have better control over the how quickly to respond and with how many answers (that's the point Janne was making above, more or less). So they wouldn't have to deal with your click speed, and would have even better control over any artificial limits than they do now.

So back to your original question: would I mind if I got to "submit a request to open X boxes" and then the server took some time to evaluate it and give me a response? I would love that in comparison with what we have now. I personally am convinced that in making these updates they would be able to make things far more efficient on the server side (and would be wise do to so) which would mean that the time spent waiting would pretty likely be lower than what we currently spend clicking. But even if it wasn't, I'd 100% prefer just waiting over hurting my hand clicking.

And obviously it's hard to speculate when we don't know the details of how things work. But the guesses we're making are pretty reasonable. If they have to tailor their solution a little differently because their system is a little different than we think, that's OK too. But I would be really surprised if they couldn't design a batch-like solution of some sort that would benefit players and reduce server strain in one fell swoop.

litaaers · June 2017

dupeks said:
I'd speculate it's also pretty likely that the biggest "bottleneck" in the current process is either the physical click speed (or put another way: the time wasted between clicks), an artificial limit that they put up to prevent the server from being overloaded with the "doing a bunch of stuff", or network communication.

@micky1p00 I'll answer your rant in a little bit, but please read @dupeks replies, especially the above quote. The dead space imposed by doing the process manually is a natural throttle. Going around that *can* have consequences, and I don't need to be a 'Cryptic employee as a system designer or database designer' to know that.

You might also want to speak harshly to @beckylunatic as well. I hear she sometimes asks questions/makes comments about the game's inner mechanics too, and I don't believe she works for the company, either.

micky1p00 · June 2017

litaaers said:

dupeks said:
I'd speculate it's also pretty likely that the biggest "bottleneck" in the current process is either the physical click speed (or put another way: the time wasted between clicks), an artificial limit that they put up to prevent the server from being overloaded with the "doing a bunch of stuff", or network communication.
@micky1p00 I'll answer your rant in a little bit, but please read @dupeks replies, especially the above quote. The dead space imposed by doing the process manually is a natural throttle. Going around that *can* have consequences, and I don't need to be a 'Cryptic employee as a system designer or database designer' to know that.

You might also want to speak harshly to @beckylunatic as well. I hear she sometimes asks questions/makes comments about the game's inner mechanics too, and I don't believe she works for the company, either.

Please do, I'm all anticipation. Don't derail to other players and what they do or not, our discussion is your claims and mine. So please do tell where I'm wrong.

Your assertion of natural throttle shows a gross misunderstanding of how caching, database locks and optimization works. A server always receives operations. But if it receives most of them related to one operation you get large percent of cache hits, and in a case of batch operation you can optimize it significantly.
On the other hand when you get different operation that are not related (different players in this case). The page access caches will be overwritten and you get performance impact. A server doesn't need throttling if the total operation will be the same and the it's able to optimize it by knowing the total operation requirements like in a single batch operation.

Nor you need throttling in multi-threaded environment, where the thread manager will assure responsiveness to all the users. In worst case at the same time as sending one by one, and better case much earlier if it has free resources. Especially with acid compliant databases that are the standard for decades now.

Lets go back to what you wrote:

litaaers said:
What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!

1. You assert that a batch operation will flood the server by providing the negative condition.
2. You ask if a player will want something implemented with some conditions, for whom you ask ? Only a dev will know the relevant constrains to their system. So what is that question for ? You imply that one way is possible while the other is not, so If you have some inner knowledge or the devs spokesperson please do tell, I have a lot of questions and requests I still didn't get answers for. I'll know to direct them to you too.

litaaers · June 2017

micky1p00 said:

litaaers said:

dupeks said:
I'd speculate it's also pretty likely that the biggest "bottleneck" in the current process is either the physical click speed (or put another way: the time wasted between clicks), an artificial limit that they put up to prevent the server from being overloaded with the "doing a bunch of stuff", or network communication.
@micky1p00 I'll answer your rant in a little bit, but please read @dupeks replies, especially the above quote. The dead space imposed by doing the process manually is a natural throttle. Going around that *can* have consequences, and I don't need to be a 'Cryptic employee as a system designer or database designer' to know that.

You might also want to speak harshly to @beckylunatic as well. I hear she sometimes asks questions/makes comments about the game's inner mechanics too, and I don't believe she works for the company, either.
Please do, I'm all anticipation. Don't derail to other players and what they do or not, our discussion is your claims and mine. So please do tell where I'm wrong.

Your assertion of natural throttle shows a gross misunderstanding of how caching, database locks and optimization works. A server always receives operations. But if it receives most of them related to one operation you get large percent of cache hits, and in a case of batch operation you can optimize it significantly.
On the other hand when you get different operation that are not related (different players in this case). The page access caches will be overwritten and you get performance impact. A server doesn't need throttling if the total operation will be the same and the it's able to optimize it by knowing the total operation requirements like in a single batch operation.

Nor you need throttling in multi-threaded environment, where the thread manager will assure responsiveness to all the users. In worst case at the same time as sending one by one, and better case much earlier if it has free resources. Especially with acid compliant databases that are the standard for decades now.

Lets go back to what you wrote:
litaaers said:
What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!

1. You assert that a batch operation will flood the server by providing the negative condition.
2. You ask if a player will want something implemented with some conditions, for whom you ask ? Only a dev will know the relevant constrains to their system. So what is that question for ? If you have some inner knowledge or the devs spokesperson please tell, I have a lot of questions and requests I still didn't get answers for. I'll know to direct them to you too.

I'm working tonight. I will respond when I have time tomorrow, although I doubt it will matter.... you seem to have no directionals in your driving quest for the 'truth'. Also, since this sounds more like a 'i don't like you, so I don't like anything you say' issue, I'll respond in PM. Feel free to re-post them if you want, I'm only taking it off-forum to not HAMSTER off the Mods.

micky1p00 · June 2017

litaaers said:

micky1p00 said:

litaaers said:

dupeks said:
I'd speculate it's also pretty likely that the biggest "bottleneck" in the current process is either the physical click speed (or put another way: the time wasted between clicks), an artificial limit that they put up to prevent the server from being overloaded with the "doing a bunch of stuff", or network communication.
@micky1p00 I'll answer your rant in a little bit, but please read @dupeks replies, especially the above quote. The dead space imposed by doing the process manually is a natural throttle. Going around that *can* have consequences, and I don't need to be a 'Cryptic employee as a system designer or database designer' to know that.

You might also want to speak harshly to @beckylunatic as well. I hear she sometimes asks questions/makes comments about the game's inner mechanics too, and I don't believe she works for the company, either.
Please do, I'm all anticipation. Don't derail to other players and what they do or not, our discussion is your claims and mine. So please do tell where I'm wrong.

Your assertion of natural throttle shows a gross misunderstanding of how caching, database locks and optimization works. A server always receives operations. But if it receives most of them related to one operation you get large percent of cache hits, and in a case of batch operation you can optimize it significantly.
On the other hand when you get different operation that are not related (different players in this case). The page access caches will be overwritten and you get performance impact. A server doesn't need throttling if the total operation will be the same and the it's able to optimize it by knowing the total operation requirements like in a single batch operation.

Nor you need throttling in multi-threaded environment, where the thread manager will assure responsiveness to all the users. In worst case at the same time as sending one by one, and better case much earlier if it has free resources. Especially with acid compliant databases that are the standard for decades now.

Lets go back to what you wrote:
litaaers said:
What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature? There is also overflow to worry about. Not so much with Leadership bags, but with Quartermaster bags, the unidentified greens and potions pile up quick....

EDIT: Was just confused what QM meant above, until I used the word myself.....getting old is a damn bald faced lie!!!

1. You assert that a batch operation will flood the server by providing the negative condition.
2. You ask if a player will want something implemented with some conditions, for whom you ask ? Only a dev will know the relevant constrains to their system. So what is that question for ? If you have some inner knowledge or the devs spokesperson please tell, I have a lot of questions and requests I still didn't get answers for. I'll know to direct them to you too.
I'm working tonight. I will respond when I have time tomorrow, although I doubt it will matter.... you seem to have no directionals in your driving quest for the 'truth'. Also, since this sounds more like a 'i don't like you, so I don't like anything you say' issue, I'll respond in PM. Feel free to re-post them if you want, I'm only taking it off-forum to not HAMSTER off the Mods.

No, please respond in public. I can't re-post anything, it will be out of context. You said publicly that I'm wrong, so please publicly explain how, it's a technical aspect, we can all learn from and maybe others will have additional input.

We are having a civil discussion here, I'm sure it wont be a problem, and if there will be, we will get the proper notification. But please respond, this post of yours address my tone, which is your assumption and has no relevance to the points I make as long as I don't insult you personally, which I will not do.
It's only side effect or perhaps the purpose? is derailing the main thread. I would like to believe that you are not trying to force the mods to removing both your and mine posts and as such avoid the explanation behind your statements that I'm wrong.
Also if you had the time to post, I don't see why you can address those issues.. but please do, as I've said, I'm really looking forward to learn from my mistakes.

And by this explain how the feature that is the subject of the thread, open all boxes, must have the conditions you described. And why a batch operation is bad for us. And why a single batch command will not take less bandwidth than N single operation commands. With the proper explanation of my mistakes maybe we can achieve even a better suggestion to the devs to implement...

litaaers · June 2017

Well, if you insist. Although you've put a lot of requests out there, so I'll hit them a few at a time.

micky1p00 said:
We are having a civil discussion here

If there is anyone that can't feel the sarcasm dripping from these lines, please contact me. I'll point it out. And that isn't a personal attack. I just want to point out that I can't think of a legitimate poster that goes from the previous tone to this false 'no, no, I really am wanting to hear your opinion' tone in no time flat.

Some notes:

1) dupeks noted that 'Those are relevant concerns (server spam, and overflow).' You've only addressed me. Oversight, or tunnel vision?

2)

micky1p00 said:
Maybe we should leave the technical assumptions to the devs and not presume to speak for them and the game architecture ?

Why? I'd have to say that a good 15% or more of the posts in this forum speak about the relative functions of the game, their technical aspects, and assumptions, recommendations, even claims of how easy it is to make modifications to the game. You would have all of these people stop discussion on this? Or just me?

3)

micky1p00 said:
It's only side effect or perhaps the purpose? is derailing the main thread.

Your assumption, and definitely not my intention. If I had to guess (assume), I would say that you have seen some of my other posts, questioning the demands of some other posters, and you've got the time, and the disposition to try to make me your windmill to your Don Quixote.

4) If you re-read my question :

What if the button opened (say, 100), but took pretty much as long as doing it by hand, so as to not flood the server? Would you still want the feature?

The main point is Bolded. I was NOT saying:
I don't like the idea.
The process WILL flood the server.
I want to open boxes one by one.

What I WAS asking was:
Do people want to just get it done quicker, or are they only concerned about the mouse clicks.

No slant, no bias, no chiding. Just a HAMSTER question, which is allowed, AFAIK. The part about 'so as to not flood the server' is a TOTAL ASIDE, which you seem to have locked onto tighter than an anaconda on a drunk Guatemalan. Which, if you read the rather nice interplay between dupeks and myself, you will see that the idea of taxing the server is not a foreign concept.

micky1p00 said:
Also if you had the time to post, I don't see why you can address those issues.. but please do, as I've said, I'm really looking forward to learn from my mistakes.

I didn't have time to address those issues then because I was going to work. That ok? I *did* have time for a quick response. Now, I'm home, but I *still* have to sleep, but I managed to squeeze out a few comments (I'm SURE they will not be enough to satisfy, but I will fit you in once I'm tip-top again).

If I REALLY thought you were interested in my reply as to why I think you are wrong about the bandwidth issue, I would answer with no compunctions. But since I smell a little BS, I'm going to ask you to answer/comment on 1), 2), 3) and 4) (especially 1) and 3)). If you don't come off as someone just out for blood on a perceived slight, I'll finish off these explanations. But if this is just a jousting match, well then, I have boxes to open, and RP to double, so the rest will just have to wait til I have time.

P.S. Don't reply with "I knew you wouldn't answer, cuz you HAVE no answer' or 'whatsamatta? CHICKEN?' or any other McFly reponse. I'm just HAMSTER tired. And if I'm gonna miss sleep, it won't be for an injured ego (which does not necessarily describe this situation... I will see what you reply before I go that far).

Merry RPing!

Lita

micky1p00 · June 2017

I'll wait for the rest of your response especially where I'm wrong on the technical aspect. Don't derail to your conversation with dupeks, other posters, their opinion and what not.
You said I'm wrong on the technical aspect, and as i've said repeatedly, and without any ambiguity, I'm awaiting for that explanation. You seem to go to every aspect except the one I ask you to answer. So please do. I'm here, waiting, I will replay to everything once you do, and good night.

ecrana · June 2017

beckylunatic said:
Well if they already let console players do this, then all the convoluted logic of "oh, gee, well... they probably don't want opening containers to not involve repeated clicking BECAUSE BOTS so we shouldn't even dare to speak of it" is thrown out the window.

I'll add that while it is much easier on the hands and on our controllers, when opening most bags (like QM bags) you can only hold the button for a certain amount of time before you get an error because the game can't keep up with opening that many bags in a row. Minor annoyance but this may also relate to the server issues you guys are debating.

The game can't handle opening 20-30 boxes in a row without me letting up on the button for it to catch up. I can't imagine how well it would handle me being able to rip open 100 boxes a time. Minor annoyance though like I said.

beckylunatic · June 2017

I'd think that's slightly different than commanding the game to execute "open all/open X", because you depressing a button is still signalling for the system to open your boxes one by one, just without you having to move your finger to send all the individual commands.

It gets behind on PC as well when we spam-click. You can stop clicking and watch the loot scroll in for quite a long time until it catches up.

They already have the capacity to average out what your refinement crits should be from refining stacks of items, which was a VAST improvement on refining items singly (no nostalgia for those days). I'd expect the technology to calculate average quantities of what your boxes should spit out could also be implemented.

Any opening session where the player wants to go slower and watch their individual results could still be handled via manual input. "I feel lucky" vs. "I don't care, just gimme the goods".

litaaers · June 2017

Rest does a body and mind good.

So, where were we? Oh yes, I called your technical assumptions wrong, and you want to know why.

Because I control *this* keyboard, I'll preface this with this: If I said I was wrong to call you wrong, would it matter to you?

I'll type my thoughts while I wait. I will post them either way. Just want to know.

litaaers · June 2017

ecrana#2080 said:

beckylunatic said:
Well if they already let console players do this, then all the convoluted logic of "oh, gee, well... they probably don't want opening containers to not involve repeated clicking BECAUSE BOTS so we shouldn't even dare to speak of it" is thrown out the window.
I'll add that while it is much easier on the hands and on our controllers, when opening most bags (like QM bags) you can only hold the button for a certain amount of time before you get an error because the game can't keep up with opening that many bags in a row. Minor annoyance but this may also relate to the server issues you guys are debating.

The game can't handle opening 20-30 boxes in a row without me letting up on the button for it to catch up. I can't imagine how well it would handle me being able to rip open 100 boxes a time. Minor annoyance though like I said.

As @beckylunatic said, this is more of a buffer caching thing, which can vary by platform, hardware, OS and application. After the RP weekend, I think I will set my mouse to act single-click as a double-click, and see if I can figure out the buffer limit... at least for me.

I think having this option wouldn't be bad, as long as everyone took all of the ramifications into account. There are tons of ways to do it, some of which would work better than others. The biggest real question here is: cost Vs. benefit. We have little to no cost, but would reap the benefit. Maybe we have to give something up to bump this up in the queue (assuming it is even going into the queue....)

Please Consider Open All for Boxes

Comments