---

Suggestion Title: Remove Shelter Buffer Suggestion Summary: Recently, in order to help improve shelter lag, Niet added a 1sec buffer before we could refresh the shelter again. This makes sense to help reduce lag! But then he found another solution that seemed to speed the shelter up quite a bit. I was wondering if it would be possible to remove this buffer with the new update in place, or to at least try a few days with it removed and see how the shelter lag fares. Positive points: Helps people (esp. with quality of life) refresh the shelter faster to refill their parties quicker or find what they're looking for faster. Negative points: Could add to shelter lag; unknown. Edit; Removing the buffer could also allow players to double click on the button by accident and miss what they wanted to adopt Reason For Consideration: Kinda already in summary

---

Edit: I'd be happy with reducing it to 0.5s instead of removing it altogether tbh!

I was thinking about suggesting this as well ^^; It wasn't a bother when the shelter lag made it take a second or two for it to load anyway, but now that the lag is gone, it's way more noticeable.

I don’t really support. The delay is hardly restrictive; a second of cooldown doesn’t really seem outrageously limiting to me. Even with the sorting and highlighting of the QOL userscript, it still takes me at least half of a second to process whether what I’m looking for is there and move on. Much faster and my reflexes become an issue. The feature isn’t and should not be made for QOL, using the unsorted shelter should be close to a second to find whether or not what you’re trying to find is in there. Additionally(sorry, I’m still in essay mode), the cooldown can help prevent accidental double clicks. For me personally, I sometimes double tap things due to mild shakiness. While reloading the shelter twice in one go isn’t the end of the world, if it can be prevented it could keep the shelter lag from increasing again. Perhaps the reload time could be reduced, still preventing accidental doubling but reducing the slowness feeling? As stated above, the button is usually ready to go before I am, so I’m not sure what a good limit would be here. (Again, apologies for the format. I just got out of writing about Shakespeare and my brain is still telling me to reflect my thesis in each body paragraph. I’m not trying to lecture or feign superiority)

That makes sense -- I hadn't considered double clicking. Also, the point with QoL is difficult to argue, because imo QoL needing to exist to begin with is a problem, and it's practically mandatory to use it for some of the site aspects it improves. On one hand; you're right, the site shouldn't have to develop around a user-made thing. It should develop for it's intended features. On the other hand, Niet clearly endorses these scripts, and they are used by a huge percentage of the pfq userbase. So... I don't have a good conclusion to that point. I dunno! I would be content if the reload time was halved tbh. It would help with QoL users, but not completely cater to them, and solve the initial issue you mentioned with double clicking.

I do know that Niet stated he would consider reducing the timing from 1 second to 0.5 seconds here (last posts). Also, I'm going to add my support for at least reducing the timing to 0.5 seconds. It's great that I'm not accidently clicking before I'm ready but on the other hand it doesn't usually take me 1 second to notice that I don't need anything on the page. I click the button before the wait time is over since I keep forgetting it is there as well.

No support. It has prevented me from accidentally reloading when I found things

Behind the scenes, I am picking up the pieces of my original suggestion and the many, many bits of feedback it received, to compile into a much better solution that should please everyone. For now, the 1s buffer will be kept, however its duration or even existence would be reviewed as part of the update package.

@Niet That makes a lot of sense, thank you for the input!! I appreciate the transparency a lot. This suggestion can probably be moved to a different forum section if you've already got it in the works!

you want to move this thread so bad