Fix legacy sort data system

[CNR4806]

Right now, the theoratical maximum data range for legacy sort is between -32768 and 32767 for a total of 65536 different integers, however, since the input field is limited to a length of 5 digits, this massively cuts down the allowed values to -9999 to 32767, a total of 42767 different integers, which means that 26679 possible cominbations are wasted. Even with duplicate values in my indexing system, I still find myself getting quite close to the ceiling with just over 1900 dragons (though admittedly, I haven't been using the negative side much).

 

 

Here are the fixes that I propose, which are practically mutually exclusive:

1. Allow 6-digit input (ie. opening up -10000 to -32768 for use). Should be the easiest since it doesn't really change the data structure itself. On the flip side, it will make the indexing system of players one hell of a mess if they wish to fully utilize its potential, and does nothing for players who don't want to touch the negative side of the values.

 

2. Change the data range. Instead of -32768 to 32767, go from 0 to 65535. It disallows negative sorting (which allows people to place stuff above the default position of new stuff, which is 0), but looks like the most sensible option to me.

 

3. Switch to 24-bit (or higher, but that's hardly necessary) AND lift the length limit. I'm pretty sure it is next to impossible to use up even the positive side (0 to 8388607) in normal usage. By far the most extensive fix that benefits pretty much everyone who uses Legacy sort, but if anything it should be the most time-consuming and complex to implement out of all three of my suggestions, and also eats up more server space since the size of sort data will increase for every single scroll.

 

4. Tab sorting, which should ease up the stress of indexing everything on the scroll, making it harder to reach 32767. This is a suggestion for long-term improvement for sorting and does more than just fixing legacy sort's shortcomings. This is not a thread for tabs, please move over to that thread if you wish to discuss how it should be implemented.

[Ruby Eyes]

There are actually 3 byte number formats for databases? I'd have thought it's only 2, 4 or 8 byte ...

 

But yeah, more values would be really cool. I find myself re-numbering my dragons more and more densely every time I try to fit new dragons and lineages in ...

Edited August 30, 2014 by Ruby Eyes

[CNR4806]

There are actually 3 byte number formats for databases? I'd have thought it's only 2, 4 or 8 byte ...

 

But yeah, more values would be really cool. I find myself re-numbering my dragons more and more densely every time I try to fit new dragons and lineages in ...

Let's just say I did not exactly put much of an effort to understand how these things work in detail. I only know the bare basics.

 

The bottom line is, the current limit is pretty tight for elaborate indexing systems in my opinion, and these things are what I can come up with to cope with it, especially within the current 16-bit (2-byte) storage system (barring suggestion #3 of course).

[codyne]

Not in favor of #2. I like to keep my leetle tree at -1 so it's always at the top of my scroll. There is no other way to "pin" an item at the top of a scroll, which is something people are always asking for, and currently Legacy is (apparently) the only sort method that can do it.

 

No real opinion about the other fixes, since I generally use one number per breed and am nowhere near running out of numbers to use.

[Ruby Eyes]

I just pin my tree to the top with "0" since every new dragon will be put on 0 as well, thus any dragon newer than the tree will be below it (sorting works by number, then by age).

[codyne]

I just pin my tree to the top with "0" since every new dragon will be put on 0 as well, thus any dragon newer than the tree will be below it (sorting works by number, then by age).

True, and that would certainly work for me, but if somebody wanted to pin more than one item in a certain order that wasn't by age, only negative numbers would work.

 

 

[rubyshoes]

Not in favor of #2. I like to keep my leetle tree at -1 so it's always at the top of my scroll. There is no other way to "pin" an item at the top of a scroll, which is something people are always asking for, and currently Legacy is (apparently) the only sort method that can do it.

 

No real opinion about the other fixes, since I generally use one number per breed and am nowhere near running out of numbers to use.

Agree with all of this. I use negative numbers (I think I've only gone down to negative 6 or so - I like my zombies and leetle tree at the top) to keep certain dragons at the top of my scroll. Even with over 9600 dragons I still have plenty of numbers left to use (I haven't even got out of 3 digit numbers yet).

[CNR4806]

I am actually using a little of the negatives to pin my "important" dragons on top myself (Grimoire Tous and above if you're actually looking at my scroll), but to me, sacrificing the ability to negative sort for moving the 32767 ceiling up is an acceptable tradeoff.

 

That said, increasing the data size is, to me, the best fix out there (barring tabs) if possible.

 

 

Slightly off-topic: If you're wondering why I'm getting that close to the ceiling, I'm using 100s as breed dividers. It allows excellent freedom for sorting within-breed by lineage (10s), and within that lineage I still have room to sort things however I like (1s).

Edited August 31, 2014 by CNR4806

[Obscure_Trash]

There was a suggestion to be able to lock/pin certain dragons in place, so for people worried about negative numbers, perhaps you should include that in your OP as hopefully something that could happen alongside it?

 

~

 

I personally don't use legacy, so I am neutral on whatever happens to it. ^^

[WestWindReborn]

What i notice with legacy is when i move dragons i get repeating numbers. The counts don't reset to account for the new order. Maybe it does when you move and save in one of the other sorters, but I'm useing a tablet and can't use them.