Truncation warning

[Dar]

Sometimes ... you just get talkative. Or add too much of an emote and too much text together. And you get ... truncated. Which is generally no big deal, and I know many expert players know when to stop. And some clients prevent it somehow by themselves. But ... some players dont, and some clients dont. And personally I find it a bit jarring when I do it, or when others do it near me.

So ... a simple suggestion. A toggle option of truncation warning. Something like ... if you typed out that would be truncated. Whether a say or an emote, or a wish up, or a bug command. Instead of letting it go through, it would block it and return this echo (It would be truncated). Giving you the chance of editing things out if you so desired. Make it toggleable, so if someone doesnt care or doesnt have the problem, they can toggle it off and it'd work the way it does now.

[AmandaGreathouse]

I would use the hell out of this.

[domwriter]

I would use the hell out of this.

I, one hundred percent would use the hell out of this too.

[FuSoYa]

I just wish that when speaking it didn't take the pre-emote length in mind.  I ALWAYS hit the limit while speaking and it's normally only by a few words so then I end up having to do:

Code Select Expand

say (continuing) ....whatever it was that got cut off.

So, yes.  I wish there was something and I do not like the idea of a warning though.  Then it will just delay the scene and cause me to have to go and rewrite what I want which would be a pain in the ass.

Just up the character limit that is able to go through for speaking.

Brandon

[Cerelum]

I too hate trunication, let my long-winded pcs be longwinded!

[Akoto]

FuSoYa's example is something that happens to me in almost every scene. I admit to being very wordy at times, so I'm always having to split statements into two (or more) segments. Second nature for someone whose roots are in MUSH/MUX! Taking the action portion out of the equation would be a great change.

I'd like it if we could toggle the truncation off, personally, but I can see how this wouldn't be feasible.

[Aaron Goulet]

Truncation is in place to prevent over-sized packets, which can crash the MUD.  That being said, I think the ability to toggle whether or not strings that would be truncated actually go through would be GREAT.

[FuSoYa]

Truncation is in place to prevent over-sized packets, which can crash the MUD. 

Perhaps in some situations but I do not think that applies in this one Aaron.  (Granted I'm not a programmer/coder)

I think it's an issue that NOBODY wants (well very few might but the majority do not) 4-5-6-7 sentence paragraph emotes.

I think in the case of talking though when the emote action is added to the speech it can make it so you have barely any room to actually say what you are trying to say.

I petition that this gets bumped up or the emote tags in say/talk/whisper/et cetera are not counted against the total characters allowed in conversation.

Brandon

[Aaron Goulet]

Truncation is in place to prevent over-sized packets, which can crash the MUD. 

Perhaps in some situations but I do not think that applies in this one Aaron.  (Granted I'm not a programmer/coder)

I think it's an issue that NOBODY wants (well very few might but the majority do not) 4-5-6-7 sentence paragraph emotes.

I think in the case of talking though when the emote action is added to the speech it can make it so you have barely any room to actually say what you are trying to say.

I petition that this gets bumped up or the emote tags in say/talk/whisper/et cetera are not counted against the total characters allowed in conversation.

Brandon

Sorry, let me clarify on what I was trying to say:  The game has a set input buffer size;  you get the truncation message when your sent input exceeds the buffer.  It's not a restriction put in place to reduce emote lengths; it's built into all Diku-based MUDs, regardless of input type.

[FuSoYa]

Truncation is in place to prevent over-sized packets, which can crash the MUD. 

Perhaps in some situations but I do not think that applies in this one Aaron.  (Granted I'm not a programmer/coder)

I think it's an issue that NOBODY wants (well very few might but the majority do not) 4-5-6-7 sentence paragraph emotes.

I think in the case of talking though when the emote action is added to the speech it can make it so you have barely any room to actually say what you are trying to say.

I petition that this gets bumped up or the emote tags in say/talk/whisper/et cetera are not counted against the total characters allowed in conversation.

Brandon

Sorry, let me clarify on what I was trying to say:  The game has a set input buffer size;  you get the truncation message when your sent input exceeds the buffer.  It's not a restriction put in place to reduce emote lengths; it's built into all Diku-based MUDs, regardless of input type.

Yes, but I believe it can be increased with no noticeable problems to the game. 

Any input Morgenes on rather this would decrease the game performance or something like this?

Brandon

[Nyr]

I don't believe increasing the buffer is such a black and white issue that it's just a matter of looking at whether it can be coded or not (much like other stuff).

There are pros and cons, most of which have nothing to do with stress on game performance.

[Xygax]

Our socket code gobbles up data being sent to the mud until it reaches a newline, it doesn't care how much data you send (though there ARE limits, they're much larger than the limit currently being discussed -- which exists, as others have posited, to prevent filibustering maniacs from filling your screen with nonsense).  I think a flag that toggles between "This is too long, maybe you should edit." and "This is too long, here's what we sent:" is a great idea.

-- X

[FuSoYa]

Our socket code gobbles up data being sent to the mud until it reaches a newline, it doesn't care how much data you send (though there ARE limits, they're much larger than the limit currently being discussed -- which exists, as others have posited, to prevent filibustering maniacs from filling your screen with nonsense).  I think a flag that toggles between "This is too long, maybe you should edit." and "This is too long, here's what we sent:" is a great idea.

-- X

This is not the correct path to take I believe if only for the fact that I think it will slow down gameplay.  If I get a message that what I'm saying is not going to be sent through it will just frustrate me into taking extra time to edit it and either having to re-type it or something of that sort.

Just my opinion though.

Brandon

[Xygax]

Well, that's why it would be a flag.  If you prefer simply having your stuff sent truncated, you shouldn't enable it.

-- X

[FuSoYa]

Didn't see the flag part, my fault.

That being said, I still think the issue could be better resolved by not counting the characters in an emote when speaking towards the limit on speaking.

Brandon

[Xygax]

Well, currently the truncation code happens well before actual commands are processed.  It could be reworked to do anything, of course, but it's not a one-liner.  Something like this flag concept would be.

-- X

[Spice Spice Baby]

I think this is a great idea and I would use it, especially on wishes.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I like the idea. Might I suggest prefixing commands with t instead of toggling a flag?

tsay
ttell
temote
tphemote
twish

This would allow you to make your choices on the fly.

[FuSoYa]

I like the idea. Might I suggest prefixing commands with t instead of toggling a flag?

tsay
ttell
temote
tphemote
twish

This would allow you to make your choices on the fly.

Sorry but...

Code Select Expand

The bearded, business-casual dressed male shudders.

Brandon

[Xygax]

No, you may not suggest that.  

As I said above, the current code doesn't know what the command is before it truncates.  Again, that could be added, or "peeked" easily enough, but I'd prefer a minimal change.

-- X

[mansa]

What's the current limit of characters to be sent before truncating?

[FuSoYa]

As I said above, the current code doesn't know what the command is before it truncates.  Again, that could be added, or "peeked" easily enough, but I'd prefer a minimal change.

-- X

A hotfix might be nice temporarily but I do not think it does anything alleviate the underlying issue that some of us have. 

Maybe the problem is I just need to not emote when I'm talking with others... I mean, it's not like my character is making movements or anything while they talk.

I also do not know why I'm now getting all worked up over this.

Brandon

[MarshallDFX]

As I said above, the current code doesn't know what the command is before it truncates.  Again, that could be added, or "peeked" easily enough, but I'd prefer a minimal change.

-- X

A hotfix might be nice temporarily but I do not think it does anything alleviate the underlying issue with mudsex emotes that some of us have.

Brandon

Fixed!

[FantasyWriter]

What I did to solve it for myself (and it seems to always work):

Make your input box large enough for three lines to be typed inside.
Make sure you don't type more than will fit in the box.

[HTX]

If your emote is so long that it'd get truncated, definitely agree it shouldn't be sent, that's just a pain.

Don't mind long speeches been truncated though... it gives you an opportunity to interrupt a speech, which I've always thought was neat.

[spawnloser]

I think this is unnecessary for speech.

Code Select Expand

say (continuing) ....whatever it was that got cut off.

Just do this.

It would be useful if emotes that would be truncated were simply not sent by default.  Still, I think we need no toggle option.

[Xygax]

And that's why -you- would not turn the toggle on.  I don't understand why you guys argue against the implementation of features that could potentially improve our game's UI for other people whose brains operate differently than yours, when the feature doesn't affect you at all, if you choose not to use it.  Truly, why do you care?

-- X

[Gimfalisette]

And that's why -you- would not turn the toggle on.  I don't understand why you guys argue against the implementation of features that could potentially improve our game's UI for other people whose brains operate differently than yours, when the feature doesn't affect you at all, if you choose not to use it.  Truly, why do you care?

I believe the reasoning is:

-- Staff time is a scarce resource.
-- This feature would not be valuable to me personally.
-- Other (possibly undefined) features would be valuable to me personally.
-- Therefore, I do not want staff time to be used on this feature.

Note that I believe this line of reasoning is often fully unconscious, and is expressed along the lines of "We don't need this."

[Cutthroat]

This debate reminds me of the color debate.

"We don't need no stinkin' colors!" / "We need colors!" Either way, you please everyone by adding the option for colors. And guess what, there's the option for colors in Arm2.

It's the same thing here. If you have trouble with truncating, turn it on. If you like the way it is, turn it off. And as Xygax seemed to say before, adding the toggle would be so simple that the generic "staff's attention should be focused elsewhere" argument wouldn't work.

[mansa]

So, I was able to emote something with 245 characters in it.

That's 24 ten letter words.

[Dar]

I never really saw a truncated emote. I just added it for ... the hell of it. Now ... emote+speech in one command, gets truncated all the damn time. And you cant prevent truncation for the emote+speech either. First of all due to code, and second of all simply to avoid a near 500 letter paragraphs (245 character emote, and 245 character speech).


So yeah. Just a toggle. It'll fix the problem for those who have it, and wont bother those who dont.

[spawnloser]

Gimf hit it on the head.  I think there is a simpler solution than the idea suggested.  I suggested an alternative for emotes and a workaround for speech.

However, I have more to say about it...

Having a truncation warning, I think it would be a BAD thing for speech, incidentally.  I believe you will see people getting the truncation warning, adding a ';' in the middle, at a good separation point, followed by adding in another 'say' command immediately after that ';' meaning that there is very little difference between having the toggle and just increasing the length of communication allowed.  Having it truncate speech without warning means that the person then has to scramble to get that last part out before someone interrupts them.  I think that the current length allowed by speech commands represents the characters' need to breathe occasionally and makes it possible for characters to be interrupted, which is a good thing for interaction.

A truncation warning for emotes?  Good.

[Dar]

Gimf hit it on the head.  I think there is a simpler solution than the idea suggested.  I suggested an alternative for emotes and a workaround for speech.

However, I have more to say about it...

Having a truncation warning, I think it would be a BAD thing for speech, incidentally.  I believe you will see people getting the truncation warning, adding a ';' in the middle, at a good separation point, followed by adding in another 'say' command immediately after that ';' meaning that there is very little difference between having the toggle and just increasing the length of communication allowed.  Having it truncate speech without warning means that the person then has to scramble to get that last part out before someone interrupts them.  I think that the current length allowed by speech commands represents the characters' need to breathe occasionally and makes it possible for characters to be interrupted, which is a good thing for interaction.

A truncation warning for emotes?  Good.

How does the warning for says make it any different? It doesnt allow them to speak more then they now can. So they would "still" scramble to finish up, and they would "still" be vulnerable to interruption. The only difference, is that it'll feel less jarring and annoying to everyone, or at the very least ... me.

Shouldnt be too difficult to add either. Though ofcourse a real coder would know better. But it looks like it's just a single "if" statement, and another flag in the nosave array.

[spawnloser]

No, if you would get warned of the say being too long, you would have the option to split before it sent to everyone.  You could send it in a way that prevents interruption part of the way through.  If it just truncated and the person speaking had to scramble to get the rest out, it causes a delay that I think is GOOD because it, in many ways, represents the character having to take a breath after running his/her mouth for so long already.

[Lizzie]

How does this constitute "running their mouth for too long?"

Averting her gaze, the tressy-tressed woman opens her mouth as though to speak. She then shuts it. And then opens it again, and takes a deep breath. In a wavering, unsure tone, the tressy tressed woman says, in tress-accented sirihish, "No."

[spawnloser]

That's a separate issue, the emote counting toward the limit.  I never said I was opposed to having the emote not count towards the limit.  I am just opposed to having a truncation warning for speech, as in the speaking part.

[Dar]

That's a separate issue, the emote counting toward the limit.  I never said I was opposed to having the emote not count towards the limit.  I am just opposed to having a truncation warning for speech, as in the speaking part.

That's the problem. It 'isnt' a seperate issue. Due to code anyway. You notice how when you use emote commands in says, it doesnt add to trunctation limit? There is no "easy" way to make the emote and say be seperate commands. While the warning should be pretty easy.