Page 12 of 28
Posted: Fri May 18, 2007 6:24 pm
by tahitiwahini
Mylittlepuddykat wrote:But wheres the personal list? can someone take me thru step by step fromt he beginning as I am really confused
OK.
On this page see the menus on the left hand side of the page (you may have to scroll to the very top of the page). It's right under the large CONQUER CLUB banner and under [logout Mylittlepuddykat]. The first menu is the Game Menu, the second Interaction Menu, and the third Personal Menu. If you have installed "Bob," stocksr's greasemonkey script when you open a game window you will see another (fourth) menu called Greasemonkey Menu.
Click on My Games, then click to enter one of your active games. See it now? This is where you change the options for the "Bob" script.
Good luck.
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 2:58 am
by yeti_c
Is it official then?
The script is now called "Bob".
C.
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 4:05 am
by cicero
yeti_c wrote:Is it official then?
The script is now called "Bob".
C.
Not sure if it's official yet, but since it seems highly likely to become so, I do think it should be "BOB" rather than "Bob" - so that the fact it is a three letter acronym (TLA) indicating "Battle Observation Briefing" is given emphasis. [Notwithstanding that it was listed as "Bob" in the poll.]
Also I think it is better aesthetically in upper case.
cicero
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 6:17 am
by tahitiwahini
cicero wrote:yeti_c wrote:Is it official then?
The script is now called "Bob".
C.
Not sure if it's official yet, but since it seems highly likely to become so, I do think it should be "BOB" rather than "Bob" - so that the fact it is a three letter acronym (TLA) indicating "Battle Observation Briefing" is given emphasis. [Notwithstanding that it was listed as "Bob" in the poll.]
Also I think it is better aesthetically in upper case.
cicero
No, not official. The official announcement will come from stocksr. I take your point, it probably should be "BOB," rather than "Bob." I was only going on how it was listed in the poll, and the fact that it seemed to have the most support.
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 7:09 pm
by cicero
I like that Trojan Horse could still sneak in and win
cicero
Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 10:32 pm
by weirdbro
Yeah, just 2 more votes for a tie.
We could try to be very accurate, just keep eliminating the one in last each time, until only 1 was left.
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 3:40 am
by yeti_c
weirdbro wrote:Yeah, just 2 more votes for a tie.
We could try to be very accurate, just keep eliminating the one in last each time, until only 1 was left.
Actually one of the TH votes was changed to BOB anyway!!!
I was going on the fact that 7 days had passed since the start of the poll... and I assume the poll will have stopped now?
C.
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 4:06 am
by yeti_c
I was just reading a thread here - and I suspect that we've missed a colourblind aspect...
The colours of the cards might be hard to distinguish if you are colour blind...
I don't know how you can do this nicely though...
Any ideas on how we can portray the colours of the cards?
C.
Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 6:46 am
by tahitiwahini
yeti_c wrote:I was just reading a thread here - and I suspect that we've missed a colourblind aspect...
The colours of the cards might be hard to distinguish if you are colour blind...
I don't know how you can do this nicely though...
Any ideas on how we can portray the colours of the cards?
C.
My Cards (
bold if owned):
Ontario (R),
Yakutsk (G),
Siam (B)
The poll is now closed
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:47 am
by stocksr
Thanks for the votes guys, it is official this script will be renamed to BOB. Additionally I am moving from version 0.9 to 1.0
Just a heads up though, when I do release BOB v1.0 as a side effect of the rename you will have to manually remove the current script and you will lose all your settings, but I shall cover that in more detail in the release notes.
Also I may delay the release for a few days because the current version of Greasemonkey has a bug when removing scripts.
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:50 am
by stocksr
tahitiwahini wrote:yeti_c wrote:I was just reading a thread here - and I suspect that we've missed a colourblind aspect...
The colours of the cards might be hard to distinguish if you are colour blind...
I don't know how you can do this nicely though...
Any ideas on how we can portray the colours of the cards?
C.
My Cards (
bold if owned):
Ontario (R),
Yakutsk (G),
Siam (B)
It's on the TODO list,
cicero as a colour blind player could you confirm that this suggestion helps, also can you tell the difference between bold and not bold? or would it help to have that included as well.
Thanks
Re: The poll is now closed
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 5:02 am
by yeti_c
stocksr wrote:Thanks for the votes guys, it is official this script will be renamed to BOB. Additionally I am moving from version 0.9 to 1.0
Just a heads up though, when I do release BOB v1.0 as a side effect of the rename you will have to manually remove the current script and you will lose all your settings, but I shall cover that in more detail in the release notes.
Also I may delay the release for a few days because the current version of Greasemonkey has a bug when removing scripts.
YAY for BOB!!
C.
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:25 pm
by cicero
tahitiwahini, helpful as ever, wrote:yeti_c, with a few more words which I have edited out for some reason, wrote:I suspect that we've missed a colourblind aspect...
The colours of the cards might be hard to distinguish if you are colour blind...
Any ideas on how we can portray the colours of the cards?
C.
My Cards (
bold if owned):
Ontario (R),
Yakutsk (G),
Siam (B)
As a colourblind type("severe red green" I think, but that may not be technically correct) I don't have any problem with identifying the colours of the cards.
More specifically whilst I may not have been able to identify the colours of the cards I
can distinguish that there are three different colours. I
think that this is probably because they are tonally (as in light/dark) quite distinct.
Not that I'm attempting to veto the idea, but as a member of the potential target audience I don't think we need it. Other colourblinders please disagree as you see fit ...
cicero
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:28 pm
by cicero
stocksr wrote:tahitiwahini wrote:yeti_c wrote:etc
C.
etc
It's on the TODO list,
cicero as a colour blind player could you confirm that this suggestion helps, also can you tell the difference between bold and not bold? or would it help to have that included as well.
Thanks
Sorry, didn't notice you'd contributed too R.
See my previous post. And no, there are no problems for me distinguishing bold from non-bold.
cicero
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:47 pm
by weirdbro
Yeah, I'm colorblind too. The colors are fine for me as it is. I didn't need to use the colorblindness setting for games until i started playing with more than 4 people.
And bold is fine. I may be colorblind, but I'm not thickness-blind or plain blind.
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 4:49 pm
by yeti_c
cicero wrote:tahitiwahini, helpful as ever, wrote:yeti_c, with a few more words which I have edited out for some reason, wrote:I suspect that we've missed a colourblind aspect...
The colours of the cards might be hard to distinguish if you are colour blind...
Any ideas on how we can portray the colours of the cards?
C.
My Cards (
bold if owned):
Ontario (R),
Yakutsk (G),
Siam (B)
As a colourblind type("severe red green" I think, but that may not be technically correct) I don't have any problem with identifying the colours of the cards.
More specifically whilst I may not have been able to identify the colours of the cards I
can distinguish that there are three different colours. I
think that this is probably because they are tonally (as in light/dark) quite distinct.
Not that I'm attempting to veto the idea, but as a member of the potential target audience I don't think we need it. Other colourblinders please disagree as you see fit ...
cicero
That's good then... Upto you Rob whether you upgrade BOB with this!
C.
Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 9:58 pm
by andreweberman
how about an odds calculator in the next update?
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:01 am
by weirdbro
What, tell you the odds for attacking or autoattacking, or both?
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:52 am
by andreweberman
autoattacking, attacking is always the same
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:03 am
by stocksr
cicero wrote:More specifically whilst I may not have been able to identify the colours of the cards I can distinguish that there are three different colours. I think that this is probably because they are tonally (as in light/dark) quite distinct.
Not that I'm attempting to veto the idea, but as a member of the potential target audience I don't think we need it. Other colourblinders please disagree as you see fit ...
cicero
based on your statement above, say you are in a fixed rate game and have 3 cards all the same colour are they red or green?
Is this a situation when you might need help to tell the difference?
BTW it is a VERY easy thing to add so I don't mind either way, but my feeling is that using colour as the only way to convey a bit of information has the potential to cause some people problems.
BTW do we have any other types of colour blindness other than red/green represented here?
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:13 am
by stocksr
andreweberman wrote:how about an odds calculator in the next update?
You mean something like: you set up your attack in the two drop downs and next to the auto attack button appears some text saying
You have a 1 in 200 chance of taking the territory if you auto-attack, and will have on average 5.45 armies left
I like the idea, but I will need some help from the maths bods (tahitiwahini?) could you provide the body for this function
Code: Select all
function willIWin (attackingWith, attackingAgainst)
{
var n = 1;
var d = 100;
var a = 5.75;
// I Need some maths here
return "You have a " + n + " in " + d + " chance of winning if you auto-attack, and will have on average " + a + " armies left"
}
If we do this it will be in BOB v1.1 not the next release which is BOB v1.0
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:23 am
by yeti_c
Hey Rob,
Do you like the new name?
Do you ever get called Bob? Do you hate being called Bob?
C.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:59 am
by stocksr
yeti_c wrote:Hey Rob,
Do you like the new name?
Do you ever get called Bob? Do you hate being called Bob?
C.
Yeah I like the new name, it's working for me.
I don't think I have ever been called Bob myself so there is no confusion. though in my time I have answered to:
Rob
Robert
Mr Stocks
Bert - this I did hate, I think that's why they kept doing it.
Rob Rob Rob Rob - don't ask
Oi You
Philip - My brothers name but my mum was having a bad day so we have to let her off.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 5:02 am
by yeti_c
Excellent - I'm glad you like it.
stocksr wrote:Philip - My brothers name but my mum was having a bad day so we have to let her off.
My mum gets me and my bro mixed up sometimes... lame isn't it!!!
C.
Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 7:41 am
by tahitiwahini
stocksr wrote:andreweberman wrote:how about an odds calculator in the next update?
You mean something like: you set up your attack in the two drop downs and next to the auto attack button appears some text saying
You have a 1 in 200 chance of taking the territory if you auto-attack, and will have on average 5.45 armies leftI like the idea, but I will need some help from the maths bods (tahitiwahini?) could you provide the body for this function
Code: Select all
function willIWin (attackingWith, attackingAgainst)
{
var n = 1;
var d = 100;
var a = 5.75;
// I Need some maths here
return "You have a " + n + " in " + d + " chance of winning if you auto-attack, and will have on average " + a + " armies left"
}
If we do this it will be in BOB v1.1 not the next release which is BOB v1.0
Some initial thoughts about this:
1) The calculations are accomplished through recursion (I believe) so it's a computationally expensive operation. If you get up in the range of more than 50 armies it becomes a slow operation. I'm not sure it's the sort of thing you want running whenever a user picks a country to attack in a drop down list.
2) The main reason I use the battle odds calculator (Gambit) is to calculate my odds of success for eliminating one of my opponents. That is, I identify an attacking force and then a comma-separated list of the defender's remaining armies. The user interface suggested above wouldn't really support this use.
3) There's no callable interface to either the Gambit or Bartell battle odds calculators, so one would have create a battle odds calculator from scratch. Since I'm basically lazy I'm not sure I'd want to tackle this. If someone wanted to pursue this I could offer some suggestions and ideas on how to go about it. [Basically there are six attacks (3v2, 3v1, 2v2, 2v1, 1v1, 1v2) for which the probabilities are known and it's possible to reduce any attack to a combination of these known attack probabilities.]
4) As an alternative, perhaps you could offer a link to a battle odds calculator on the game page. I would suggest the Gambit one. As a practical matter if I'm going to use Auto-Attack (which I don't by the way) I would be willing to click on the link to the Gambit calculator, enter my armies and the defender's armies and click calculate, before using the Auto-Attack button.
5) Both the Gambit and Bartell calculators are capped at a certain number of armies. Bartell is limited to 50 armies. Not sure what the limit for Gambit is, but it is limited also. There might be a very good reason for these limits as the calculation may take an unacceptably long time if they are exceeded.