It looks great so far. I especially like the HTTPS support.
It’s quite slow, but not particularly more than before. I suspect this has a lot to do with the fact that the new version has not been fully cached on my device yet.
In theory, Fallen London should be quite responsive: the images don’t change much, and can be cached, and text can be delivered with GZip compression.
In practice, it uses a lot of JavaScript timers. Any substantial speed increases will probably come from eliminating as much unnecessary JavaScript processing as possible.
What exactly is being done when the player opens a storylet branch or Opportunity Card, for instance? It feels like most of the waiting happens there, and you might be able to load that ahead of time.
On the redesign known issue thread, it states the following:
“If you’ve found a bug and it’s not on the Known Issues list below then please check you are on the most up to date version of the game. The version number can be found at the bottom of the Fallen London site. Try refreshing the page a few times to ensure you’re on the current version and then try again.”
What is the version number we should be seeing?
J-
I’m very impressed with the speed of the new Bazaar and search bar. I’d still like an in-line shortcut to sell or use items when you get them, but this is an excellent time-saver.
[quote= Saklad]It looks great so far. I especially like the HTTPS support.
It’s quite slow, but not particularly more than before. I suspect this has a lot to do with the fact that the new version has not been fully cached on my device yet.[/quote]
[color=#9966ff]Definitely that in part. We’re also still working on some optimisation. [/color]
[quote=Jason5237]On the redesign known issue thread, it states the following:
"If you’ve found a bug and it’s not on the Known Issues list below then please check you are on the most up to date version of the game. The version number can be found at the bottom of the Fallen London site. Try refreshing the page a few times to ensure you’re on the current version and then try again."
What is the version number we should be seeing?
J-[/quote]
[color=#9966ff]Currently v7587. I’d love to keep the current version up to date on the Known Issues thread but we’re pushing updates out all the time so keeping up with it is not practical. I know it’s not ideal but the best thing to do when you come to log in is press F5 a few times. When you see the number stop updating you know you’re up to date. [/color]
[quote= Saklad]In theory, Fallen London should be quite responsive: the images don’t change much, and can be cached, and text can be delivered with GZip compression.
In practice, it uses a lot of JavaScript timers. Any substantial speed increases will probably come from eliminating as much unnecessary JavaScript processing as possible.
What exactly is being done when the player opens a storylet branch or Opportunity Card, for instance? It feels like most of the waiting happens there, and you might be able to load that ahead of time.[/quote]
My basic intuition is that it’s just a server latency issue (which therefore won’t change either way with the new frontend): I have never observed a difference moving between devices with vastly different processing power (and thus vastly different javascript performance). I haven’t actually ever taken a look at how long the network requests take, though, so I don’t have any actual evidence/data.
Understood and appreciated; thank you, ma’am!
:)
J-
edited by Jason5237 on 6/5/2018
For me it is much more sluggish than the old site was. All the scrolling that is needed now also feels like a massive step backwards in design, too. Can’t fathom why it was felt that was a good idea. Just compare the old Fate page to the new one, for example. I don’t see how anyone could say that is an improvement.
After a refresh I seem to be on the newest version now and the favours are working again, so that’s a plus. Also I really like the map and the bigger (and different) location pics, so it isn’t all moaning from me. I shall miss the old ones, though. I’d better screencap them before they are gone forever.
[quote=Plynkes]For me it is much more sluggish than the old site was. All the scrolling that is needed now also feels like a massive step backwards in design, too. Can’t fathom why it was felt that was a good idea. Just compare the old Fate page to the new one, for example. I don’t see how anyone could say that is an improvement.
After a refresh I seem to be on the newest version now and the favours are working again, so that’s a plus. Also I really like the map and the bigger (and different) location pics, so it isn’t all moaning from me. I shall miss the old ones, though. I’d better screencap them before they are gone forever.[/quote]
Why screencap them? You can pull them directly by image URL. You can probably even access them through the Internet Archive.
Sorry, I misspoke. I simply meant save them, by whatever method.
[color=#9966ff]Please check out our dev blog. I’ve explained there why we’ve made the changes we have as well as explaining that we’re going to try to find a happy medium with the space/scrolling issue over the coming weeks and months. I also mention that we are going to be reorganising the Fate page in the future too. [/color]
[quote=Dudebro Pyro][quote= Saklad]In theory, Fallen London should be quite responsive: the images don’t change much, and can be cached, and text can be delivered with GZip compression.
In practice, it uses a lot of JavaScript timers. Any substantial speed increases will probably come from eliminating as much unnecessary JavaScript processing as possible.
What exactly is being done when the player opens a storylet branch or Opportunity Card, for instance? It feels like most of the waiting happens there, and you might be able to load that ahead of time.[/quote]
My basic intuition is that it’s just a server latency issue (which therefore won’t change either way with the new frontend): I have never observed a difference moving between devices with vastly different processing power (and thus vastly different javascript performance). I haven’t actually ever taken a look at how long the network requests take, though, so I don’t have any actual evidence/data.[/quote]
The funny thing about JavaScript is that it often introduces lag that is independent of your processing power (unless you have an unrealistically slow system). A process might wait for 10 ms, for instance, before checking if everything is loaded. The minimum loading time would then be increased by 10 ms. Checking more often could waste resources and energy, but each timer you add stacks up. That’s the sort of thing that makes a webpage on a lightning-fast Internet connection and a bleeding-edge computer take time to load.
P.S. Lesleyann…where should I look on a mobile device to see the version number? I cannot seem to locate (I’m playing on an iPhone 6S +).
[quote=Jason5237]
P.S. Lesleyann…where should I look on a mobile device to see the version number? I cannot seem to locate (I’m playing on an iPhone 6S +).[/quote]
[color=#9966ff]On mobile devices you’re only going to see it right at the bottom log the login page, rather than on each page/tab.[/color]
Got it - thanks.
[quote=FailbetterFuzz]
[color=#9966ff]Please check out our dev blog. I’ve explained there why we’ve made the changes we have as well as explaining that we’re going to try to find a happy medium with the space/scrolling issue over the coming weeks and months. I also mention that we are going to be reorganising the Fate page in the future too. [/color][/quote]
Maybe this should go into the dev blog thread, but since this is already being discussed here and it’s still on-topic, I’d just like to mention that I don’t see why a "happy medium" is really even necessary: you’re sacrificing function for form, purely and simply. The older layout never did strike me as cramped or poor (even when I first discovered the game), so while I see what you’re going for, you’re doing it at the expense of all the players who are even mildly familiar with the game and wish, first and foremost, to get stuff done.
That should never happen in design, unless what you’re making is meant to be appreciated aesthetically and "function" isn’t important. Which isn’t the case here - FL is very much meant to be used for extended periods (over time), so making things be more tedious and take more effort strikes me as horrible UX design, and not something which needs to be adjusted into a "happy medium".
Of course that’s just my own opinion - I wouldn’t be at all surprised if new player retention (through a flashy and "modern" look and feel) is more important from a business perspective than old player satisfaction (which are presumably not very likely to just up and leave, abandoning all their prior investment, just over a design change). And older players can adjust things client-side with userscripts/styles, which no new player is ever going to bother with - this is an important point, and what I feel is the saving grace of the update (which would probably have caused me to stop playing had this for some reason not been an option, but as it stands is worth it for the https alone). However, I think it’s very much possible (though doubtlessly not easy) to make things both appealing from a design point of view, and optimised from a UX perspective. I’m not a graphic designer so I can’t really offer concrete advice, but I can definitely say that "hey let’s add more whitespace" isn’t part of that. And that, really, is the essense of all my complaints about the update.
edited by Dudebro Pyro on 6/5/2018
Dudebro Pyro - aesthetics aside, I was playing the beta test site recently in lieu of the legacy site and it has been responsive. This is a major redesign and it’s always an adjustment for both the developers and the players. The redesign will improve on all facets over the next few weeks as additional bugs are identified and resolved.
I see that there are a lot of folks clamoring for no change, but I’m sure that after some time on the new site, most will eventually enjoy it just as much as the legacy site (if not more). Adjusting to change can often take time…and I include myself in that.
J-
One thing I’ve noticed about the new site is that results stay open until the player explicitly uses the onwards button. This neatly solves the issue of losing results, which was a big issue for anyone with connection issues. However, this change means that the results screen now prevents players from using items; instead we have to hit onwards and wait for the main story tab to load first. Since opening the inventory means the player saw the action result, is there any way to prevent results blocking item use?
[quote=Jason5237]Dudebro Pyro - aesthetics aside, I was playing the beta test site recently in lieu of the legacy site and it has been responsive. This is a major redesign and it’s always an adjustment for both the developers and the players. The redesign will improve on all facets over the next few weeks as additional bugs are identified and resolved.
[/quote]
I don’t see what "being responsive" has to do with what I said. While I have no doubt that bugs will be fixed, that too isn’t what my problem with the website is (which is the core design decision of making things "less crowded" - some people have also mentioned extra clicks for some aspects, which if true is equally poor, but I haven’t used the beta design nearly long enough to stumble on anything like that).
I certainly agree that people will adapt to change, and I’m not considering quitting the game over this or anything. However, I would question the entire mindset that seems to be going on here of "newer is better". Some improvements are absolutely objective (https, mobile responsiveness) and I’m very happy to see them, some have little argument behind them besides "it’s old" - the prime example being FB stating several times that they wanted a redesign "because the current look is 8 years old". I didn’t, and still don’t, get the reasoning behind that - it’s not like it was designed with a Windows 95 UI style and desperately needed a visual refresher; it had its own look and style, which had aged very well inhavedeed in my opinion, and visually didn’t look in any way outdated to me at least. So going back to the initial sentence, people can certainly adapt to change, but why should they have to? Don’t fix what ain’t broke, principle of least surprise (in a way), and all that.
Not that I’m expecting this paragraph to change any minds or anything, I’m just laying out my reasoning.
edited by Dudebro Pyro on 6/5/2018