Change Month Training Idea (in General)
Yes, it is me of the training suggestion. Do not know about the rest of you but I use the "other" option a TON, so hopefully this could be as useful a suggestion.
I think it would be great to have a default train. Something that simply remembers your defaulted list box selections (ignores use of the "other" selection) This would not be brain surgery. If you add a minion your default will not auto include them or any such nonsense it will simply apply your default to the previous minion as it did in the past and allow you to make your own selections on the new one. You could of course set up a default to include your new minion.
This would not click train for you, you would still be able to review and modify the default selections. This would simply apply your 1/3 1/2 max type distributions to multiple or single minions without you having to select it over and over again.
Why you ask? With the new NCB and the NUB, if you start out with 4 minions, you end up having to train often as you earn experience quickly, and you end up doing the same thing over and over again. Every 20 fights you have to make 12 different list box selections (4 minions 1/3 1/2 max selection each) and you are doing the same one over and over.
Hopefully the programing necessary to add a simple default train is minimal and thus this slight change could be implemented without much ado. Granted if implimented it will not profoundly affect CB, but I think it would be an enhancement to the current training system.
P.S. I was think two links, one link says save default train and the other says apply default train.
March 3 2006 10:51 AM EST
Verifex already has this in his FF script.
see Veri's FF Grease Monkey script
A) I do not wish to be tied to a specific browser, especially an extended FF.
B) Many people who play CB don't even know what FF is let alone GreaseMonkey, or how to install it.
C) I play CB from multiple locations and I do not always have control over what browser I use.
D) I think it would be pretty simple to add it to the current CB interface
E) Obviously someone else thought it would be a useful tool because they took the time to program it into a script for FF
Those are suggestions on how could I get this done now. Saying if this change does not go through, I have alternatives.
This post however is the suggestion to bring that change into the existing interface and you are welcome to debate its usefulness or non-usefulness here :)
I think it's one of those "Jon don't help the lazy" kinda things...but that's just me...
March 3 2006 10:59 AM EST
being honest Sefton i would rather see Jon focusing on real changes not minor little convenience things
While I agree with you MM, I honestly think this is the kind of change someone Jon is trusting with the interface could make, without Jon getting involved. Other than the default store state (does the default state get put into the database) it should be fairly simple. Heck I am ok if they want to cookie it. CB already lays down a cookie, and if your defaults get lost because you dropped the cookie, who cares. Redoing it once a month is a lot different that duplicating the same training pattern 8 times every 160 BA so something like 42 times a day? Which is my point of course :)
March 3 2006 5:09 PM EST
You train every 20 battles? Is that really necessary, especially when you admit to not even using all your BA throughout the day and not buying any? *smile*
No choice when you are starting a NCB and you have a named RoE on them. Basically average 100 exp a win, and win 18 out of 20 fights, with a PR of less than 5K yes I have to train a lot. Never had this problem before the NCB I will admit :)
This strat Ranger clued me on is an AMAZING exp gainer you should try it Sut ;)
And does that really matter because:
A) would it be a benefitial change?
b) would it be a harmful change?
c) would it be a difficult change?
Then whats the problem?
Sefton, honestly... I think I probably asked Jon if it would be cool to program it in myself into CB. And it was either too much trouble, or there were more pressing matters to be taken care of first. Either way, the FF script I made does exactly what you need. I can see what you mean by wanting persistant settings such as that though.
Besides, the amount of saved training settings that that little script stores on your PC is quite alot. Adding that to CB would take drastically more resources, and would only enable lazy people. If you ARE the lazy person, I suggest you install FF and GM at all the locations you play this at. :)
That script is kinda the half-way-between point where CB doesn't have to transfer a million extra K of data to each client, yet each client still has a rather full-featured experience. Hell, I could put half of CB in those GM scripts and make it so CB hardly had to transfer any data at all to the client, ahhh but I digress. Live with it Sefton ;)
March 3 2006 6:10 PM EST
Oh, I understand wringing out every gain possible (something I don't bother with), but jeesh... A few days of BA and you will be out of the starting mire and able to establish some better favorites. Training every 20 battles might be better than training every 50 at first, but have you averaged that out over the whole life of the character? By the time you hit 1 million MPR, do you think 1000 or even 5000 battles really matter that much for optimization? (that's only 3 days of fighting if you buy BA...)
Cool Verifex, lets hope it was "or there were more pressing matters to be taken care of first." instead of "too much trouble". In case it was the latter, would you inquire?
Well I think that if you choose to run a script, you should get more fuctionality, and store quit a lot. I would think, and I could be wrong, but the training data could be stored as a simply HTML string that would "pre-select" the list boxes (since they are static) as a function of your browser. Alternatively you could simply store the list box order. Simply change the order of their appearance in the list, such that it was the top selection. Those may be difficult things to do, I do not know.
As for you Sut, and all this lazy talk, my question is why would anyone actually oppose the idea. Assuming it is easy to do. If someone who knows says it is really tough, I will drop it. But you Sut I got this same non sense from you on the "other" option, and look, see....
It worked out OK. CB did not implode. Sloth and Pestilence did not descend. People did not become overly lazy. There were other significant changes to CB as such that the "other" change did not remove the abilty for changes to be implemented because of the time it took to program.
So there you go, if its real tough to do, and no one has time to do it, then do not do it. If it easy to do or I should say would not take much time to do (I wont pretend any programming is easy) then why not? Its useful enough to add to a GM script.
March 3 2006 8:40 PM EST
I am glad to hear you have forgotten how that previous thread ended. Such is a pearl I cannot leave within the oyster:
What Sefton Is Referring To.
If you reader, oh brave soul, go three-fourths of the way down that page (where the picture is), you will see (when Sefton explains his idea better with a fantastic mock-up), that he and I begin to conjoin in violent agreement. I do, in fact, believe me capitulation takes poor, dear Sefton off guard, once he realizes I have no "hidden agenda" and am not just being a pompous mule's behind (a rare, nay FREAK occurrence!)...his posts cease. I actually run with the ball. I call his idea "elegant" even, and help work out some mental kinks (mainly for my own need -- everyone else appeared to have gotten it much more quickly than myself.
That being said, I could not possibly care less that the last idea worked out. That doesn't matter. It was a great idea, as I already agreed to as the idea was being explained.
If you would like for me to NEVER be contrary, to always just say, "YES, great idea!" then you will excuse me...I have a FORS list that I need to try to yes-please-canwe-comeon-lets-do-it-now-great-wonderful-cajole Jonathan into.
No, I didn't think so.
As for the whole why-not-do-it-it-doesn't-hurt idea. Oh dear. There are approximately 1.4 trillion things Jonathan could do to the game that wouldn't hurt a thing, and might even help 1 or 2 people. So what? That's your argument? Sorry, dude, I expect better from the guy I usually end up agreeing with anyway. *smile*
<me being conceited jerk>
I can't believe the "Other" option is considered Sefton's idea, when I originally came up with it ;P
</me being conceited jerk>
March 3 2006 9:56 PM EST
Verifex, my love for you is well known. That was another reason to post that link -- so folks see my unrequited feelings!!!!!!!
So Sut, since I still have yet to see a clearly stated objection to the idea, I will infer:
"You train every 20 battles? Is that really necessary, especially when you admit to not even using all your BA throughout the day and not buying any? *smile*"
That your objection here is I train too often.
The next post of your seems to suggest that I train to often and that I will not have to train as much soon. Again I can only infer from it that is your "objection" or message.
And lastly, after you suggest that paying attention to history of something is a meaningless endeavor "That being said, I could not possibly care less that the last idea worked out."
You then go on to object I guess as saying it would clutter up Jon's busy day to do it. I did not realize you had his personal calendar.
Allow me to counter if that is possible. I think I train a fine number of times. I think I will train the as often now as in the near future.
Now to support my idea. We know for a fact that this feature was added to a specialized script. That person also has the option of doing "approximately 1.4 trillion things" with his script, but did chose to add the feature I would like added. That said, one could infer that two people think its a worthwile thing, me and him. Also aprozimately two minutes after my post two people informed me the script has the feature. It is little more of a stretch to say they think its a good idea, but certain not too far. So lets only take half of them for the sake of conservatism. That's three people who might enjoy this additional feature.
Let me also add that I do agree this is more useful early on, than later, maybe not as quickly becoming worthless as you think, but that when you are starting out it would have more benefit. That said it is these new players that you could suggest it would help the most. New players are perhaps a little more shy to post in CB forums (gosh I have NO idea why that would be), and perhaps would not or do not fully understand the benefit and are thusly not likely to post here.
Lastly I counter with this, you think I train too often (again this does appear to be your main theme as best I can tell), well I counter you do not train often enough.
March 4 2006 11:27 AM EST
In my first two posts on this thread I do not oppose your idea (read them again if you must). My first question was genuine -- wondering why you train every 20 battles. If you check my characters, you will see I have an NCB character now. Always fun and exciting to get a character out of the first muck. So, I was trying to find out why you train every 20 battles to help me with my new character. In fighting this morning, I can see where training every 20 can be helpful.
Your answer to my initial question didn't share any information at all. It just said, "Yeah, you have to train a lot", and something about Ranger. The fuller, more helpful answer would have been (in case anyone is still following this thread): You have to train a lot because the "virtual" PR from untrained experience makes your rewards smaller and smaller for those wins that you can attain. All experience needs to be utilized as quickly as possible so you can beat higher characters. With the NCB, experience rolls in very fast -- training every 20-30 battles can be a very good thing. It is quite fun to see how quickly rewards plummet after you win a couple dozen battles but aren't beating anyone higher.
My second post on the thread, again, does not oppose your idea. I was still discussing the 20-battles-then-train (as you still hadn't explained to me why it was necessary (and I really didn't know)). You responded by bringing it back to "Why are you opposed to this idea, Sutekh!" Hard to respond to something that I wasn't doing in the first place. I was not opposed.
My third post was a link to a previous thread where we bantered about a change to the training page. In that thread, until I was clear on what you wanted, I was stubbornly holding the line on "that seems hard to do technically, with too much clutter..." As soon as you made a mock-up, I was on board with your idea. I agreed with you. I said "yes". I called the idea "elegant", and continued posting with Jonathan and Verifex and others to refine the idea. It eventually got implemented pretty much just as you presented it. So, this was an example of how I DO like changes. No, pestilence and sloth did not ensue -- nor did I ever say they would. I have asked for such changes myself. Some made it, some didn't, some morphed, some were laughed at.
This will likely be my last post for a long time. I just want to clarify some things in your recent post:
- I never objected to you training often, I just asked why.
- My original question about training was not in opposition to your idea, and I apologize if it came off as such.
- I never said that paying attention to history is a meaningless endeavor (this one really bewilders me). I said the previous discussion we had was VERY important. It showed that I AGREED with you and even continued to try to get the idea implemented after you stopped posting on the thread. I have a hard time seeing how that is meaningless. However, the fact that we came to agreement on that idea does not mean I have to agree with every idea, does it? I agreed with that idea, I do not agree with this one (even now that I understand where you are coming from with it).
- You are correct about some people wanting this. On this thread, however, there is not much support. Sounds like GL would like to see it, but several other people, myself included, would rather have other things worked on (no, I am not going to list what).
- I train too little? Since I am not asking for a change in the game as related to my training habits, how often I do or do not train is no one's business but mine. That's how that works. If you bring something into the limelight, then yes, people will question you. I am not proposing any changes to the game. So, if I want to rarely train and get sucky rewards as I bust out my first days of the NCB, how is that any of your concern? It affects nobody but me.
Have a great weekend!
This thread is closed to new posts.
However, you are welcome to reference it
from a new thread; link this with the html
<a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001jIJ">Change Month Training Idea</a>