View Poll Results: Which GUI would you like best?

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • The top one (general token priority)

    9 47.37%
  • The bottom one (specific token priority)

    10 52.63%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: So vote.

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    TheRigger is offline

    Posts
    641

    So vote.

    I've got two GUIs.
    One of them will let you go for tokens in general, but doesn't work as perfectly without a bit of appropriate switching between depth two and depth one.
    The other will let you go for specific tokens, and (probably, haven't tested this one out yet, but uses similar stuffs) probably gets them better. However, the thralling method for both is the same, as far as I am aware (basically, unless the Loch Ness Logic Monster has come and screwed up my code).

    So vote.
    Which one do you like?

    suchwow.jpg

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Ferizaj is offline

    Posts
    227
    To be honest, in my opinion I feel that the second would be better as well. Bots get really picky then as a result get slow, when prioritizing completely on one thing it can focus simply on that (only when it has the opportunity, therefore it will get great points on clears etc because it will only focus on that unless it has the opportunity) and get a nice excel/incred. I feel it would do great with the rigger as well, so all in all it's the second for me.

    The Gui looks nice too. Great work Rig
    jak8222 likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    TheRigger is offline

    Posts
    641
    Lol... It's not slow. If the score of the next move is large enough to outweigh the priority given to a token, the token will not be completed. This causes some failed tokens in the first GUI. However, in the second GUI, each specific token will be given the same priority as "High" in the first GUI (I might change this, since it is only on one type of token), therefore making it more likely to complete. However, it's not slow... Also the first can token a bit and still maintain excellent, if you're smart about switching between depth 1 and 2 (ofc, depth 2 is better most of the time).

    Edit: More failed tokens happen in the first GUI with the priority on "low," but it maintains a decent score.

    Edit: Also you can thank WindowBuilder for the GUI. Else it would look like crap. Also Face is going to have to get someone to implement a manual mode, because I'm kind of lazy... (I'm going to have to explain how to use the textbased version at some point lol...)

    ALSO. Thralling in the first GUI means only thralling; it would try for thralls based on the priority anyway without the checkbox.
    Last edited by TheRigger; 02-18-2014 at 04:29 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Ferizaj is offline

    Posts
    227
    I meant to say the first one was slower than the second one in what I said, was I wrong? Guess I had the wrong picture in my head. Nevertheless, good work and haha aren't we all lazy

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    TheRigger is offline

    Posts
    641
    As it's only depth 2, they're basically the same speed. Since when did a few milliseconds make any difference?

    Edit: Also since mine is brute force, depth 3 is 156 times longer.
    Ferizaj likes this.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Ferizaj is offline

    Posts
    227
    Ah ok, makes more sense. No no, I just had a visual from comparing poseidon to trident speeds, but now I realize it's a whole different scenario, with the depths and all. Learn something new every day.

  7. #7
    Ex-Staff Member
    Quetzalcoatl is offline

    Posts
    97
    I personally think my choice would be the second, it would indefinitely help provide good support for ships. Would love that on my ships anyway
    Ferizaj likes this.

  8. #8
    #Return
    Scarecrow is offline

    Posts
    3,443
    What's the point in being able to prioritise a certain token? I can understand in a CI for thralling but not with the standard tokens. Sure you can be a few tokens off a certain maneuver but it's still not that much of a difference, and I don't know many people who are gonna sit there and swap the priorities to what the ship needs :P Better to just set it to prioritise them all.

    Something I learnt when coding, never have a feature that doesn't have a practical use. It can be "nice" to offer some more options, but some are pretty useless and shouldn't be there, such as this.

    Definitely the first one for me.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    TheRigger is offline

    Posts
    641
    Finally, somebody who agrees with me.
    Also you should see the credits tab (lol).

    It is a bit harder to try to complete the broad category of tokens and maintain score at the same time. (got 2nd excellent, I think I got like 7-ish tokens with a bit of 1/2 depth switching). Got incred without tokens prioritized though.

    It's also better than me sometimes:
    High Scores:
    TheRigger: 29 cleared 6 looped, gaff, tar, splice
    Aethyr (the bot): 30 cleared 8 looped, gaff, tar, splice
    Last edited by TheRigger; 02-18-2014 at 04:57 AM.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    tehherb is offline

    Posts
    247
    if you have a thralling option then prioritising certain tokens seems redundant because when would you ever want to prioritise one when you would almost always get a better score going for all?

    first one.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •