TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Moderators: Ane M, joli3ma3, lisa, tx2001aggie, Jeanetta

User avatar
lucymackey
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby lucymackey » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:05 am

I made 2 pictures using 200 items. I had no problems with the editor. I use a Compac pc. Vista Home Premium. My Internet speed is 5 MBS. I use Opera browser.

User avatar
Ruff'smom
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 3:38 pm

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby Ruff'smom » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:36 am

Ask! I just wrote a long response about my experience with 200 items & it erased itself!!!! (Cranky face icon)

Ok let’s try this again. I did an art with 200 items to help out with testing how it works. I did run into a few issues. I have a W8 laptop & was using Chrome as I think I remember that I read in the past that it was more stable with PnF. I have included as much detail as I can since I don’t know what is pertinent & what isn’t so if it’s too long I apologize & if you want more info or have questions please let me know.

I was doing fine until I got to 141 items (59 left on system counter) then I needed to save (#24/27 in my arts) my art & go get some more items from the mall.

When I reopened to edit after shopping I ran into a couple of issues:
1 it would not load items from the search tray to the edit tray.
2 when I attempted to move some items that were already in the art, it started moving whole bunches of items! I don’t know if I somehow selected multiple items but I did not know that that was possible in the editor & I couldn’t make it stop!

So I saved (#25/27) that also.

& I closed everything down & rebooted my system thinking that it might be a system memory issue.

When I reopened I only opened PnF in Chrome & tried again but both problems persisted so I tried opening it in IE which is the browser I use most often.

I was able to get the items to load from the search tray to the system tray & place 200 items in my art (#27/27), but didn’t do as much moving of items as I might have liked as I was running out of time before I had to take my therapy dog to listen to kids read & I was afraid of messing it up again.

I don’t know if the issues I experienced were PnF related, system limitations or user ineptitude, but hope this is somewhat helpful…let me know if you need any more info.

In answer to your other questions: I doubt that I would use more than 100 items often (if ever) as I don’t usually use anywhere near 100. I tend to make more story related arts than the kind of artistic masterpieces that some people do.

I do think that it is good for 200 items to be a premium opportunity. I would be happy for it to be for subscribers, but I do think that making the chance to use it occasionally available for non-subscribers for GMs would be really nice. (as an aside: theoretically I think that the essentials to “play” should be available at no cost so that anyone can join & enjoy without cost but there need to be things that reward those who can & do support the game financially. It is nice if there are also ways to work & trade so those who can’t pay can earn at least some of the premium items though work within the game).

Kathy
https://apps.facebook.com/petsnfriends/ ... 5902855418

User avatar
David J Weston
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:25 pm

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby David J Weston » Fri Jul 10, 2015 8:48 pm

Thank you all.

It is clear to me from the above responses that there are some users whose computers cannot successfully use 101+ items, so I do not feel I can offer 200 items as a basic service. To do so just makes the app appear faulty, whereas any fault is truly in the physical limitations of the user's computer.

Some have a use for 200+ items, some do not. Some think that having 200 items would be an unfair advantage in competitions, others do not. I agree with those who dislike the app becoming split between those who can use 200 items and those who cannot --- though it is also clear that in PnF this would be far less of a handicap than it was in fluff. In fluff 41 items was something anyone could find a use for, whereas in PnF 101 items is more than many (if not most) of the users can find a use for.

Although I am convinced that making 200 items a subscription only privilege is far less of a handicap to those who cannot pay than was the case in fluff, I am against 'subscription only' use. However it is common for games to require users to work at the game in order to be able to use a benefit, thus rewarding those who use the game regularly.

To bar competition entries with 101+ images just means disabling one button for images with 101+ items in them. To enable use of 200 items by all, but only for competitions, would mean major changes to the way images are saved, and experience shows that waiting for Al to have time to deal with changes of that kind could cause the project to wait 3 to 6 months longer than would otherwise be the case.

However, what is meant by 'competition'? The current weekly 'competitions' are 'won' by all who take part; they all get prizes. The only prize for the most liked image is to be our banner for one week. Is that what is meant by those who have a problem with use of 200 items in competitions or not? Or were they referring to the fluff art comps where users voted for art competitively? In my view such 'competitions' are just popularity contests, and were also too big for the typical user to have time to view or vote on the majority of entries. So I have no aspiration to run open entry art competitions with game related prizes in PnF, ever.

Given all of the above, I am considering the following approach. The alternative to something like this is not to allow use of over 100 images at all, on the grounds that providing free use for all of 101+ items is to offer a service the user's computer may not be able to enact:

=====

1. All users will get ONE chance to use 200 items in the editor for ONE month as a free trial, once they have an inventory with 200+ items and have bought 200+ items (the second point prevents people cheating by using multiple accounts). The point of this is to make sure everyone can find out whether the benefit works on their computer and whether they have a use for it.

2. Users would be able to use game rewards to buy a one month permit to use the editor with 200 items. How much this would cost is yet to be decided, but it must be achievable for any user who has time to play the game (say) one hour a day. Whether they use their game rewards to do so or to spend on other things would then be their choice, and there would be no compulsion to buy the use of 200 items in August just because one did so in July.

3. Payment for the facility could result in being given a ticket which could be exchanged or given away.

4. Open entry art competitions with in-game prizes (if we ever have any) would be restricted to the use of 100 items or less. Our current 'participation prize' competitions would not.

5. GIVEN THE ABOVE POINTS 1 to 4 WERE ALREADY WORKING, 200 items could also become a subscription bonus. Then it would mean that the subscriber did not have to work for the benefit, but others could get the benefit by working for it. If we use tickets, then the subscriber could give away or trade such tickets rather than use them. So if a subscriber did not want the ticket or their computer could not cope with using it, then they could let someone else benefit instead.

=============

That is how I would do this IF we do this. As I have explained above, the alternative is not to offer the use of 200 items AT ALL, because if some users cannot use it, we are selling the game as capable of doing a thing when the user's computer may not be able to cope.

Supposing this approach is compatible with the harmonious use of the game, then I am for it, but like everything else, enabling it will take time and has to take its place in the queue.

Please let me know whether the above is acceptable as a package, or if not, which points cause a problem in your view.

User avatar
joli3ma3
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:23 am
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby joli3ma3 » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:30 pm

I don't see a need to have the use of 200 items available, ever.

With that said, if the feature was introduced into the game, you have it planned out in a reasonable and acceptable way.

Thanks for all your hard work.

User avatar
kmzano
Posts: 415
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:41 am

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby kmzano » Sun Jul 12, 2015 4:56 pm

I think your proposal sounds fair. If there is a way for everyone to earn the feature through in-game play, as you have described here, I think that could be workable. Plus your month-at-a-time suggestion removes my concerns about a pay-as-you-go feature not working well if you have to save your draft in the middle.

I'm so glad you listen to us and that you are "not SGN"!
Holly the Chat Lives! Visit her and her friends by clicking on the image below.

Image

User avatar
David J Weston
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:25 pm

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby David J Weston » Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:53 pm

I understand the point about some users not needing such a feature, ever. That's why:
- Nobody has to use it.
- Subscribers who do not find the benefit usable will be able to trade it.

Saying one does not have a use for it is nevertheless a valuable contribution, because it shows me the potential market for such a feature -- or lack thereof.

Suppose for a moment we look at it the other way; use of 200 items is never introduced and yet the users know that for most of them it is technically achievable just by flicking a switch. I think to deny it to those who want it and can use it would be a bad approach. So that is why I propose (in time) to make this possible for those who want it, when they have found out whether they can use it, and to all who either play hard or pay.

I am VERY pleased that the proposed plan is seen as fair by those who were (rightly) hostile to the SGN approach, because I did not think the SGN approach made any sense at all. If the plan overcomes resistance from those who have already been angry about the handling of such a benefit elsewhere, then it should survive the opinions of those who have never met SGN or been maltreated by them.

What lucky people those must be ---

User avatar
Ruff'smom
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 3:38 pm

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby Ruff'smom » Sun Jul 12, 2015 11:32 pm

this seems like a very reasonable, fair & well thought out solution. good job once again

User avatar
joli3ma3
Posts: 523
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:23 am
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby joli3ma3 » Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:14 pm

David Joshua Knight wrote:I understand the point about some users not needing such a feature, ever. That's why:
- Nobody has to use it.
- Subscribers who do not find the benefit usable will be able to trade it.

Saying one does not have a use for it is nevertheless a valuable contribution, because it shows me the potential market for such a feature -- or lack thereof.

Suppose for a moment we look at it the other way; use of 200 items is never introduced and yet the users know that for most of them it is technically achievable just by flicking a switch. I think to deny it to those who want it and can use it would be a bad approach. So that is why I propose (in time) to make this possible for those who want it, when they have found out whether they can use it, and to all who either play hard or pay.

I am VERY pleased that the proposed plan is seen as fair by those who were (rightly) hostile to the SGN approach, because I did not think the SGN approach made any sense at all. If the plan overcomes resistance from those who have already been angry about the handling of such a benefit elsewhere, then it should survive the opinions of those who have never met SGN or been maltreated by them.

What lucky people those must be ---


THUMBS UP! :) :) :)

User avatar
Jeanetta
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:38 am

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby Jeanetta » Thu Jul 16, 2015 5:26 pm

I posted this on the group page , but will post it here as well

the only issue I found was that the arts that had the 100 - 200 items took much longer to load up on the various pages ... so it made the play time on the game run longer

User avatar
David J Weston
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 11:25 pm

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby David J Weston » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:01 am

Yes, that's a consequence of the way the game is currently coded. We can make that a non-issue when we have time to optimise the way the game works.


Return to “New features”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron