TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

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

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

TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby David J Weston » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:59 pm

We first released the editor in January 2012, just three days after SGN demanded I stop making it possible for users to access fluff. (After fluff died, access using our software had made it possible to use 90% of fluff again. We had to withdraw our software when SGN insisted.)

I released our editor expecting that this would give hope to the tens of thousands of people who had still been wanting fluff to come back to life. To show that PnF intended to offer a much better deal than SGN, the editor’s limit was set from the very start at 100 items. (Fluff allowed 40 for all users and 80 for subscribers; so 100 must be good.)

We are aware that on a good computer and the right browser, the PnF editor is capable of handling at least 200 items at once. However we have never conducted a mass test to see whether the computers and browsers our users are actually using can cope with that. Now that we have gone ‘inventory only’ and given the users time to accumulate some items, it is possible to make such a mass test, and this week’s competition IS that mass test.

We want to know if you have any problems when you use over 100 items, and preferably also if you get any problems when you have used 200. We would like to know:

- Did everything continue working? If not, what failed?
- Were you using a PC, a laptop, a tablet or a mobile phone?
- What browser were you using?
- Do you think you would want to use over 100 items in future if you could?
- If this was made an additional service, how much is it worth?
- If using up to 200 items was a subscriber-only benefit, how would you feel about that?
- If using up to 200 items required a one off payment (in GM) each time the user used over 100 items, what would that be worth?

This is the first time we have been able to investigate the issue, and your response is very important to us. We have to consider whether there should be subscriber benefits and if so how we can implement them in a way our users feel is fair. What we do not want to do is decide for ourselves without first listening to you, then do as we please. SGN lost 40% of the monthly users that way, just through introducing subscriptions. Maybe they didn’t care as long as they made more money. But we do care, and that’s why we want to involve you all right at the beginning.

The 200 item limit will last for one week only. When we have seen your responses, we will decide what to do – but it may take us some time to make it happen, depending what appears to be the best approach.

I hope you enjoy this special week!

User avatar
Yasmeen
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:34 am

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby Yasmeen » Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:53 am

WOW! This is big!

I rarely even need to use a 100 items though I have done so a couple of times. Will be sure to try it out using 200 and post the feedback. Thanks for involving the community and always taking the time and making the effort to give us the best possible game. I'd like to thank you, Lisa, Al, the moderators, artists or "Team PnF"!

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

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby kmzano » Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:21 am

This is a great feature. However, I was very against having different item limits for subscribers in fluff versus non-subscribers and I would be just as adamantly against it here. The editor is the core of the game and I believe everyone should have equal access to it. Items can be traded for, but setting up item-use distinctions in the editor creates permanent sub-classes. It also threatens the integrity of contests. There are many other subscriber benefits you can introduce that do not create the same sort of divisiveness and bitterness which should not be part of a game that people come to to find joy.
Holly the Chat Lives! Visit her and her friends by clicking on the image below.

Image

User avatar
vey_chyryn
Posts: 2140
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 3:44 am
Location: Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby vey_chyryn » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:18 am

kmzano wrote:This is a great feature. However, I was very against having different item limits for subscribers in fluff versus non-subscribers and I would be just as adamantly against it here. The editor is the core of the game and I believe everyone should have equal access to it. Items can be traded for, but setting up item-use distinctions in the editor creates permanent sub-classes. It also threatens the integrity of contests. There are many other subscriber benefits you can introduce that do not create the same sort of divisiveness and bitterness which should not be part of a game that people come to to find joy.


I agree with this sentiment. I was able to enjoy 80 items because I could afford it and was willing to pay it, but not everyone has those options; and agree with how that could be unfair for art competitions. I think 100 items available for everyone is a great improvement.

On the thought of art competitions and possible subscriber advantages, I think (if possible with programming) it would be fair to give future possible subscribers a 200 item limit IF during art competitions non-subscribed users could be upped to 200 items, so everyone was on a balanced playing field. Then if someone chose not to use over 100, that would be there choice and not a restriction. The flip to this would be to limit competition art to 100 items for non- and subscribers. Again, this would depend on the programming behind it, but I believe are both fair possibilities.

Other possible subscriber benefits could be specific items only available to subscribers but able to be traded (either given like golden tickets were, or a special subscriber shop with a few consistent items and others traded out once a month like is done already in public shops), a free gourd house after X number of months subscribed (such as every 5 consecutive months subscribed is one free house), maybe a bonus pet only available to subs (could be included with shop idea), or occasional bonus special golden moles for continued support.

A thought I like the concept of....Maybe an exclusive option of subscribers getting to vote 2-3 times a year to chose between certain items or pets to be released...such as (to use current pets as an example) subscribers could vote to chose if a leopard or tiger is released as the limited time pet, and the opposite is saved for the following month. Same concept for themes or other item releases. This one would obviously be voted on at least 4 months in advance to allow proper planning for programming, like voting in July for be something to be released in November. The pet/items/theme would still be released to everyone, but subscribers get a small sneak peak and can help occasionally decide which items to release first. A similar concept can be used for ideas in the suggestion forum, where subscribers pic their favourites or vote on artist favourites to decide which can be added in to already scheduled releases.

Or subscribers could be beta testers for new features (assuming admin and moderators are basically alpha testers already). As the game grows it would give the option for tests like this without worrying about mass confusion, crashes, or any other issues that could arise from introducing something not widely tested.



As for how my browser handles the number of items, I will have to let you know. My laptop is actually being worked on (stupid virus!!), but am using my mother's in the mean time, which has a different operating system and browser. So I will more than likely have more than one report for you.

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 » Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:43 pm

Thank you all for your replies. I have been hoping to get feed back about the way the editor works for users at 200 items, because unless I am confident that it will work for the vast majority of those who could want to use it, I will not advertise such a service. I won't try to sell things that people might not be able to use. Unless we get a lot more feed back, 200 items will never become a regular service. So the more people respond, the better.

I myself was one of those who could not subscribe in fluff. I felt that SGN were dumb to limit users other than subscribers to 40 items, because it meant they sold less items! I had been wondering if in PnF the situation was different, because users have not exactly been crying out for over 100, but I felt we should make the test.

A good point has been made about fairness in competitions. I had not even thought about that aspect as yet. Yes, it is possible to enforce limits for competitions differently to the limit on the user's own page. All I would have to do is to have the software run a check when an item was to be posted to the gallery and refuse to accept it if it had more than 100 items. This could be done, if that makes a difference to user's feelings.

I think subscribers ought to get some kind of unique reward. Finding out what our users suggest it ought to be is just as important as finding out whether the editor can handle 200 items on the computers and browsers which real users actually have. If we give people a good reason to donate regularly, that helps finance all kinds of developments, and everyone benefits from those, not just those who pay.

Supposing we get enough response to be sure users' browsers and computers can handle 200 items, and competitions limit all users to the same number of items, is there an alternative way of making 200 items a premium service without associating it with subscriptions? Would payment for each use of over 100 items make any sense? Let's be clear, I am exploring all options. My preference is to do what is best for the game - and find out before I act - not to enforce my ideas on the users when there are many alternatives.

So I remain open minded about these issues. I am most of all hoping that plenty of people say what their computers and browsers could handle, AND what they think, because the worst possible option is to think up a policy and then find that most people can't use the service. If we don't get a lot more feed back I will just have to repeat the exercise when we have a lot more users, in order to be sure that 200 items is a service we can offer with confidence.

Again, my thanks to those who have already responded.

User avatar
jannbb
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:48 am

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby jannbb » Tue Jun 30, 2015 11:55 pm

I managed to use all 200 items, and I must say it was a lot harder to do and took way longer than I anticipated. I really think that 100 is a much better maximum to work with. Just my opinion of course, and I really tend to use as few items to tell my story as possible. Jann https://apps.facebook.com/petsnfriends/ ... 7109872890
Last edited by jannbb on Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby kmzano » Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:49 am

So for a more technical response - everything worked fine for me. I didn't quite get up to 200 items - I used about 175 or so.
I used a laptop and Google Chrome. No issues in loading the items or in using the editor.

I think in most cases 100 items is more than enough. I did enjoy using 200 - I can't quite make my homemade 19 chats as well with just 100 (because 1 chat requires 11 items to make in full. . . I can get away with a few less items by overlapping them . . ).

As I said before, I would strongly oppose this being a subscriber-only benefit. I believe everyone should have equal access to the editor, as that is the heart of the game. (I actually refused to subscribe in fluff BECAUSE of the item-limit disparity. I could have afforded it, but refused to subscribe on principle while that remained a subscriber-only benefit). I feel less strongly about making it available on an art-by-art basis through a one time payment because anyone would technically have the ability to save up for the use, or be given the moles needed as a gift. However, I think that raises some problems, particularly unless you institute a save-as-draft option. What if someone didn't have quite everything they needed to make their art and then had to stop in the middle and go to the mall and buy something? Unless there is a save-as-draft option, someone either would lose all that work because they couldn't save it without paying the charge or they'd have to pay twice - once for the draft and once for the final. So that doesn't work and could cause major frustrations.

I'm still much more in favor of having a single item amount available to everyone with respect to the editor, though. It's just more fair that way.

I think there are plenty of other subscriber benefits that would work - subscriber-only access to unique pets, for example (similar to how the directory-only items are managed) would be a big one. Non-subscribers would have the ability to trade subscribers for them. Early access to some pets or decos, etc. is also an interesting idea, or the ability to provide input on what is released next. I also don't have an issue with cosmetic subscriber-only benefits that do NOT impact the editor - unique, subscriber only wallpapers, for example. But I think you should be very careful when considering creating any disparities among users in editor usability.
Holly the Chat Lives! Visit her and her friends by clicking on the image below.

Image

User avatar
Yasmeen
Posts: 724
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 4:34 am

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby Yasmeen » Wed Jul 01, 2015 3:08 am

Having tried the 200 limit in the editor, I find it worked just fine.

- No problems loading or saving.
- I used it on a PC
- The browser was Google Chrome.
- Personally I am happy with the 100 items limit (it's way, way better than the 40! Thanks :)) The 'cover ups' that I liked to use, made me wish for a bigger limit but I feel that was more since we were spoilt with the unlimited access to items earlier!
- I agree that having a higher limit for subscribers during competitions is unfair.
- Cannot say what it would be worth to the ones who would like to use the higher limit. Subscriber or a one off payment for using more than a 100 items.

User avatar
vey_chyryn
Posts: 2140
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 3:44 am
Location: Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Re: TESTING THE EDITOR AT 200 ITEMS

Postby vey_chyryn » Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:27 pm

All right, here we go.

First:
My mother's laptop, HP, running in Kentucky USA
Windows 7, laptop c. 2011/2012
Firefox 34.0.5
Internet speed aprx. 25 mbs

The game as a whole loaded well though slightly slower than I am used to (due to laptop, not game itself). Editor loaded fine, I was able to "add all" from my inventory as I usually do without issue, and I made it to a little over 100 items when my cat unplugged the laptop and it died (needs a new battery). So up until then everything was fine.



Second:
My laptop, Dell Inspiron 1500 series, running in Florida USA
Windows 8, late 2014
Google Chrome 43.0.2357.130 m
Internet speed: aprx. 30-35 mbs

This laptop naturally runs everything faster than the previous. Game as a whole and editor load quicker, "add all" again functioned without issue. Occasionally a moment pause switching between editor tabs, but I get that anytime using editor (I assume due to number of items in inventory). Able to save my work in progress 4 times before the finished product, all items remained where they should be and loaded without issue. Final product with maxed 200 items saved successfully.



On my cell I have Puffin Free and tried a piece on there as well, though the mobile browser loads much slower. and using items there proved difficult. I have tried using it a couple times for the editor and have opted not to, though not everyone using it has said option.



Using 200 items was fun, but very time consuming and more than I will commonly use. My opinion is mostly the same as before, though I do agree more with not creating accidental "classes" with the editor by making different item usage limits. If this test (or a future one when we get more users) shows user do like being able to have access to 200 items, but do not regularly use them, I would suggest maybe increasing the editor number for everyone during contests later on so anyone who wants to is able to use the editor to the max.

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 07, 2015 3:04 am

I only made one slide while the 200 items were in play so my review may not be very useful.

I used a pc, windows 7, chrome.

I used all 200 items, I had no issues, and never experienced any errors. Everything continued to work as usual.

With that said, I think the use of 200 items in the editor is far too much. I don't really see a need for it, and doubt I'd ever use that many items in the future. I feel blessed that we all get to use 100 items in the editor for free.

If the option was made available again as the game progresses, I think it's a feature that should be paid for.

As always, thanks for all you do! :D


Return to “New features”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron