This could have been discussed already some years ago, I dunno.
But recently I watched more streams and it started to annoy me to see the player moving his stone cursor around for helping himself to take a decision.
That’s something very linked to online, we don’t move a stone in the air like this in face to face.
So I was wondering if we could have the choice to not get this stone cursor. Maybe by entering only by coordinates your move? Or maybe a mark much harder to see as a stone. (A kind of cross aligned with the grid barely noticeable?).
Just wondering because yes, with some discipline you can restrict yourself to use that stone only to play your move.
My personal thought is that hovering probably makes you weaker tbh, since when I hold the mouse over a space I’m prone to going autopilot and playing too fast. I think letting the mouse go and staring at the blank board forces me to make better choices.
I think it’s also probably overall helpful for streams even if you dislike it–waving the stones around is a primary way to communicate which stones you’re considering, and I’d probably practice doing it more actively if I was streaming. (I know some streamers prefer to play custom games with analysis mode on, so they can play out a quick variation to explain something to chat.)
That said, I don’t think a “hover stone opacity” slider would be particularly difficult to implement. You could probably do it with a CSS tweak too, tbh.
Actually I liked to see this especially when the pros were playing online during COVID. It allowed us to see the moves they were considering, which are impossible to see in OTB games
To be honest, I find the assumption that online play has to be equal to face-to-face play not very convincing. Imho, online play will never offer the same experience as meeting someone and playing. Therefore, I find it unreasonable to try to make something unequal equal.
Regarding the concrete discussion: For me, it is a matter of safety. Seeing an indication that the server acknowledges my cursor position as I see it on my side is very important for me. In my experience, misclicks are a far bigger concern than some obscure discussion that something may be considered cheating. Please do not make the experience for everyone worse to fulfill some unachievable ideal.
The focus of my comment was not the easiness, but that it can be done by people who want it external to OGS feature development.
I don’t think it should be a feature of OGS, even as an option. OGS already has too many unnecessary features and settings. Not only does feature bloat waste development resources to build it now, it increases software maintenance burden and the cost of future changes (as I’m sure you GAJ know, but other might not appreciate).
I thought your meaning was suggesting that he was asking some 3rd party (such as you) to implement it, whereas I wanted to point out that it seemed like he was talking very generally, with the implication that the person who asked for it could implement it for themselves locally
What I was pointing out is that if it is as easy as they said, then this “you” should be “I” (them).
“It’s easy, you should just do xxx, how hard can that be” is so common and tiresome, it triggers that response in me, I’ve typed it and posted it before any normal content filters kick in
I think the context matters for interpreting whether the 2p pronoun or impersonal pronoun was meant. Your example looks like a 2p pronoun, not an impersonal pronoun. While the 2p pronoun being irksome makes sense, I don’t see why the impersonal pronoun would be annoying
They could have used a 1p pronoun rather than the impersonal pronoun, but I don’t see why you would find that that important, as what it is asking of you (nothing) is the same in both cases
Because if “anyone” could do it, even if GaJ is not being specifically requested, OP is still implying “someone else” fix the problem, that by their own admission, they could themselves fix. (OP being, of course, a member of the set anyone[] )
