DLD #3 [Look out for that tree!]

Unfortunately, Ravyne can't count all of the eggs due to race conditions (see: Two people doing the same thing at the same time which results in one getting dropped). This is why you have a lower number than us for recent days. THAT SAID. We've realised an issue with the stats. The database doesn't track eggs hatched, we had to reconstruct that from timelines. This has some problems. Shinies count double, but we considered that minor enough to not matter because it's being done across the board - we realised however, that there is a much bigger problem. If something is released to the shelter. Then it stays there for the week. It gets deleted, right? That means no timeline. Which means it's not counted in the stats we generated because, as I said, it uses timelines. Timelines get deleted when a Pokémon gets deleted. That's why you got higher numbers than us for the older dates. The stats generated were incorrect. This means that the stats that we generated for the past week were accurate, because everything is still there. (sans shinies counting double, ofc!) Everything older than a week - Ravyne is definitely much more accurate, but it's also still wrong. The 30k discrepancy for the 90k to 120k shows as much. That's much too big to be accurate. This means we need to amend what we stated about the stats. The general upward trend of them still stands to the positive effects that can be seen, but it's not something we can use categorically as proof due to the inaccuracies presented in the data. We are amending the statement made in the Dev Log regarding the scale of the increase and data utilised because we want to be clear that we made a mistake there. Thank you bringing this to our attention. This was something that we accidentally overlooked. While I'm not happy that we wound up providing incorrect information, I am glad that it was found out relatively quickly so that we can correct the information as fast as possible. I'm really sorry about this, we messed up here. Regardless of whether or not the trend is still somewhat showing, what we provided was just wrong.

---

---

The titles just rhyme for the most part. References where applicable. In this case, we're referencing "George of the Jungle".

If that song is the reference I'm thinking of, it's "Watch out for that tree!" Not look. But maybe it's different in the UK. What do I know? But on topic, I have issues with this HORRID lag. There was always lag around reset, but this is NOT helping. And I'm not looking forward to MCW with this lag.

Adding into the lag discussion: I would also like to point out that I, personally, do not blame the egg timer change for the lag. Parties clicks have been laggy for as long as I can remember, and what has really increased it was the (somewhat) recent server change. Obviously I doubt that there is a quick, easy fix for the site wide lag issue (and I'm sure Niet has been looking into it) but I'm sure everyone would very much love for it to be resolved or alleviated as much as possible.And I would argue that we'd love that to be priority over things like a new website (to clarify, I am not at all trying to throw shade at the new website project, just speaking to what I think most people would prefer to be first priority). Also just a disclaimer: if I have any weird typos in this or my other post, I'm on mobile so :p

Thank you for the explanation and quick response Garthic! The explanation makes a lot more sense as I couldn't come up with a way to figure out the 20k-35k statistic. [question] @Garthic - With everything you've said, specifically this part: Would this also not apply to previous Ravyne days? Before Egg Timer Change: Wed Feb 5 (x2 Niet) - 80k eggs hatched Thu Feb 13 (x2 Niet) - 89k eggs hatched After Egg Timer Change: Fri Feb 21 (x2 Niet,Dusky) - 90k eggs hatched Sat Feb 22 (x2.5 Niet) - 89k eggs hatched If we are to assume that the number of eggs lost is rather similar and if we compare Niet bonus days to Niet bonus days the numbers seem pretty close and not the increase that some users may be mislead by. While we did hatch less eggs on Feb 5th, I'm more inclined to blame that on a bit of burnout (it took place not too long after an MCW) but mostly the fact that we're comparing a Wednesday vs a Friday/Saturday where people tend to have more free time. I think that it may be a better idea to perhaps wait a longer period of time and see what the statistics look like in around a week or so. While I do actually believe there is a small increase in eggs hatching overall, I do not think it's anything so drastic as 50-100%.

[question] In the previous log discussion you mentioned that you are working on a solution to the party-clicking issues (here). Is that still happening, is there further information on that? Or were you referring to the idea/changes in the new site that are going to be brought here? It seems that most of the complaints now are related either to lag or to hand/wrist pain. This suggestion addresses the issue of hand pain and needing to move the mouse around. Relating to the lag, I hope Doom (aka Dom the server guy) solves those issues because it gets really bad around server reset, regardless of how many users are on. More users makes it worse, but it's still bad with 500 people - worse than when there are 500 people online earlier in the day. All the other complaints I'm seeing (the equality/usefulness of party-clicking, changes to mass-field clicking, etc.) seem to be either false or just personal preference.

---

I'd like to comment on the ideas about transferring between PFQ and the new game: I think it would be a really bad idea. If this is supposed to be a new website, a new game, then it needs to start from scratch, continue independently, and not be influenced from sources outside its own mini-world. I understand that it is supposed to be within the same Pokefarm universe, but creating a link between the two will cause huge problems in the future regarding currency, market values, trades, and who knows what else. Garthic stated that this transfer wouldn't happen for a while and would only include pokemon, but IMO it shouldn't happen at all. Let's say that you play PFQ and have 5 fields of shinies and albinos that you want to transfer over. Possibly to sell, possibly to complete missions with, idk. That basically ruins the entire gameplay of the new game. And if you are going to sell them (not sure if that will be an option, but bear with me), then the market price will crash because of the new huge supply. There are ways to avoid this happening (once-per-user transfer, limited use in the new game, etc.) but it still doesn't sit right with me.

@BlankSmile, Niet's comment on the numbers is based entirely on what they show at this time - entirely based on the data gathered as of yesterday - so we had at least a couple of days worth of accurate information to work off of. And if we use just the most recent week (again, using only the most accurate data), then it does show 50-100%. This doesn't mean it's inherently correct - correlation vs. causation - that's just what it shows at this time and this is why Niet himself mentioned needing more data. We're going to continue monitoring things so we can build up a better data set to view and we'll keep sharing it as we go. I do understand what you're saying with using the same 'measuring stick', so to speak, but the problem with Ravyne counting is that we don't know if that's 80-90k of 120k for the 5th and 13th or 80k of 90k, for example. I'm just pulling numbers outta thin air here so don't give that any credence. That said, based specifically on what that shows (meaning, what you showed) - yes - it doesn't show any increase. The 50-100% statement isn't based on that information, however, just because it's wholly inaccurate - it's only based on what we know to be accurate for certain. So we're going to keep generating that level of information so we know we can trust it and make accurate claims based on it as a result as we should have done so from the beginning. (Not to harp on it, I'm just rather irritated that we didn't catch the issue before posting). I hope that explains things. Sorry again about this.

Personally, I'm still not a fan of the egg timer update. It's true that it gives an incentive to party click more, and it's not a bad idea. My opinions might come from a different place than most, because I have ADHD? So maybe they're not that important because they're so personal, but I want to share some of my issues. It takes me a lot longer to fill up the egg timer now that it only counts party interactions. I could fill up the egg timer very quickly before, because it was very easy for me to zoom through field clicks without getting distracted, and it takes a lot less mental energy. I don't know why flicking through parties one at a time takes so much more energy for me, but it makes it more of a chore for me to use the website, and makes it much easier to get distracted meanwhile. Just my personal issues with it!

@Garthic That makes sense. I merely didn't want any user to be mislead into thinking that the Egg Timer was the reason for hatching 50-100% more eggs. While the post doesn't explicility state that we hatched more eggs due to the egg timer, the post is mostly about it and thus may lead users into falsely thinking the new egg timer results in 50-100% more eggs hatched. Anyways, I do believe that once there's more data and consequently more data to share, we'll have a better grasp of the effects of this Egg Timer change. Ravyne day, while not wholly accurate, should still give us a decent idea based on how often we get it now compared to before. That said, there's no need to apologize as mistakes do happen. Thank you for looking into it.

The biggest issue with the change is party clicks are much slower than field clicks, making field clicking more efficient/logical in the long run, whether you party click for the egg timer or not. I and other have tested this out, and I haven't seen a single person say contrary to the fact that, yes, party clicking is slower. Being slower brings about all of the other issues. Less IP, less CR, less bred eggs. Given this, I don't see how these complaints are false. Just look at the Dev Log. Garth listed a good amount of reasons why field clicking is better than party clicking, and these line up with the responses/complaints of the community. And about the personal preference, these issues are facts. It's confirmed party clicking is slower, which confirms less IP, CR, and bred eggs. Therefore, they can't be personal preference.

Thanks for the update. It sounds like you're still reviewing and considering things, and realize that party clicking needs some improvements to make this more user-friendly. Looks like we're starting to see some good suggestions in the suggestion forum to help with that. For those who might be struggling with the idea of accessibility in games, please see this checklist and if you have time, read this fabulous article about it. Games that require clicking/interactions are a funny beast and can really prove challenging for accessibility. When interactions for active players are in the thousands per day, that's a lot of repetitive stress, no matter how you choose to interact. Finding a balance between accessibility and fair gameplay can be daunting, and take some time to figure out. I'm 100% behind the party click changes, it's just the user interface issues that are a problem. Party clicking is just inferior in many ways when it comes to that. So long as the team keeps working toward improving this, we'll see a positive outcome.