Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Korrimal Ohmiras
EVE University Ivy League
7
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 15:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Could you PLEASE rework the if statements so that when someone clicks on "modify order" in the Market dialogue that it checks the wait timer FIRST and issues the error message right away rather than forcing people set their sell/buy price, click okay and then find out that they still have 2 seconds to go before you will allow the order to be changed.
This is beyond crazy that you wouldn't check the wait timer first and is one of these places in eve where there is unnecessary work needed by players simply becuase CCP programmers were too lazy to change the order of an if statement.
Heck - give me access to the code and I'll change it myself. Will take all of 2 minutes to effect
Ya ya - I know 2 minutes to change the code plus 4 weeks of QA, 2 weeks for documentation and release notes, 7 weeks of post-implementation bug-fixes unrelated to anything that a 2 minute fix is responsible for but people will blame it on anyways .... ya ya ya I get all of that
But couldn't you just do it anyways?
K
|
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
585
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 16:12:00 -
[2] - Quote
Your suggestion is completely reasonable and logical and makes perfect sense. It also addresses something that bothers the living daylights out of me. Too many times have I been in the exact scenario you describe, only to be told "Try again in 2 seconds."
That being said, it seems to me that this would double how much communication with the server has to go on. Right now, the client sends information to the server that you want to change order X to price Y and the server either does it and tells the client that it was done or reports back that you can't do it yet.
Under the system you propose, first the client would have to request if an order can be changed, get a reply, and then as a separate data transaction send the modification to the server, with the server then reporting back success or failure. In Jita, doubling the amount of order modification traffic might be... how shall I say it... detrimental to performance. |
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
182
|
Posted - 2013.06.30 23:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
I like and agree with both comments above...a tricky one to fix and I too have this frustration.
EDIT: What about both the above: You submit the modification as you do now but the server replies with "Your order will be modified in 2m 35secs" or something. It logs the request and modifies without the client having to resubmit the transaction again.
Would that not accomplish both parts of the above? My Feature\Idea:-á Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
586
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 00:59:00 -
[4] - Quote
Maximus Aerelius wrote:I like and agree with both comments above...a tricky one to fix and I too have this frustration.
EDIT: What about both the above: You submit the modification as you do now but the server replies with "Your order will be modified in 2m 35secs" or something. It logs the request and modifies without the client having to resubmit the transaction again.
Would that not accomplish both parts of the above?
Instead of extra communication, now you're making the server queue up mountains of orders and keep track of which ones get modified when. If there isn't a lockout, you'll have people queuing up a market modify, then immediately queuing up another one, etc.
Tricky is absolutely correct. Once CCP finishes untangling and refactoring the legacy code, I think that will open up more than sufficient performance headroom for something to be done. On the other hand, it's not like this is actually a problem, just an annoyance.
|
Korrimal Ohmiras
EVE University Ivy League
8
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 05:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Why would you need to communicate with the server at all for this one. Once the order has been submitted you could keep a copy of the wait timer in the client. You don't even have to keep the information resident in memory - throwing it into a disk cache would work as all you really want to do is keep track of the original time the order was submitted and then the client could pull that information to check the time.
Of course it depends on how they have it set up and the refresh rate of things like how often the current list of market orders is refreshed to see if a buy/sell order has been filled. If that is polled on a regular basis then its a moot point as the extra two bytes of information shared between the client and server would be essentially meaningless in terms of stress on the system at either end. |
suid0
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 07:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
Korrimal Ohmiras wrote: Heck - give me access to the code and I'll change it myself. Will take all of 2 minutes to effect
thank fk you don't
|
Maximus Aerelius
PROPHET OF ENIGMA
182
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 08:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:Maximus Aerelius wrote:I like and agree with both comments above...a tricky one to fix and I too have this frustration.
EDIT: What about both the above: You submit the modification as you do now but the server replies with "Your order will be modified in 2m 35secs" or something. It logs the request and modifies without the client having to resubmit the transaction again.
Would that not accomplish both parts of the above? Instead of extra communication, now you're making the server queue up mountains of orders and keep track of which ones get modified when. If there isn't a lockout, you'll have people queuing up a market modify, then immediately queuing up another one, etc. Tricky is absolutely correct. Once CCP finishes untangling and refactoring the legacy code, I think that will open up more than sufficient performance headroom for something to be done. On the other hand, it's not like this is actually a problem, just an annoyance.
I'll shuffle off back to my dark corner again then . All good discussions. My Feature\Idea:-á Fast Character Switching "XP Stylee"
Here's my tear jar > |_| < Fill 'er up! |
Kirimeena D'Zbrkesbris
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
184
|
Posted - 2013.07.01 09:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
Korrimal Ohmiras wrote:Why would you need to communicate with the server at all for this one. Once the order has been submitted you could keep a copy of the wait timer in the client. You don't even have to keep the information resident in memory - throwing it into a disk cache would work as all you really want to do is keep track of the original time the order was submitted and then the client could pull that information to check the time. Anything and everything client-sided is a weapon in hands of players. Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |