"back" botton in tutorial

[Scharlach]

But rather to optimize the replay speed, so that the game can be instantly replayed out of sight to any move (let say under 1s).

There is a somewhat hidden feature in the replayer to advance to a certain move number without displaying the individual moves. But it isn't instantaneous, and I think you're overestimating how fast that process can be made.

I know there is and as you say, it is not that fast. I am a developer myself and I believe executing 1000 moves to get a new game state shouldn't be something unattainable.

True. There's a replay feature that lets you skip directly to a given move number. For simple games, you can jump 100 moves into a game in a few seconds (maybe 5). For more compilicated games, it can still be time consuming, taking almost a minute of processing time to get that far.

It's not simply a matter of hoping it gets implemented one day. There are insurmountable technical limitations that cannot be removed without rewriting the framework and each individual game. At some point, the cure is worse than the problem.

I realize my complaint is ignoring a vast amount of underlying issues. While the feature should be easy in an ideal world, it is probably a major request for the current BGA implementation. At the same time, if my opinion can add the single grain of sand on the scales to make the fix or rewrite sooner rather than never, I think it is worthwhile to point out.

[Kayvon]

, if my opinion can add the single grain of sand on the scales to make the fix or rewrite sooner rather than never, I think it is worthwhile to point out.

It cannot. Each individual game would need to be rewritten. While BGA writes the framework, individual games are written almost exclusively by volunteers and freelancers, not by BGA. A hug number of the developers aren't even around anymore. If BGA rewrote their framework, they'd need to dump their current library and start over. Users would be furious, the change would be expensive, and even developers who are still around, like myself, would hesitate to donate a dozen hours per game of our free time.

It's not a case of "every comment helps" because of the technical limitations. It's just a case of lamenting, or perhaps whining, that the system works the way it does.

[Scharlach]

It cannot. Each individual game would need to be rewritten. While BGA writes the framework, individual games are written almost exclusively by volunteers and freelancers, not by BGA. A hug number of the developers aren't even around anymore. If BGA rewrote their framework, they'd need to dump their current library and start over. Users would be furious, the change would be expensive, and even developers who are still around, like myself, would hesitate to donate a dozen hours per game of our free time.

It's not a case of "every comment helps" because of the technical limitations. It's just a case of lamenting, or perhaps whining, that the system works the way it does.

Thanks, I see. If BGA is stuck with the current implementation and there's no possibility to ever move on, then it is a bit disheartening for me.

[Kayvon]

That's understandable. If it helps, putting it perspective reveals the great many upsides. For instance, there's no way a team of two BGA developers would be able to implement more than a few games a year, but the volunteer/freelance system makes it so we see new games very, very regularly.

I'm sure there are a great many things they'd do differently if they started over from scratch, yet I feel they're doing a great job within the existing limitations.