Hard to identify incoming blocks

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Please patch Quadra to where the new block at the very top will FULLY appear 
rather than slowly peeking out. This issue is the biggest drawback of Quadra.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by tetrispl...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2015 at 7:59

Attachments:

• quadrano.gif

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I disagree with this request.  This would be totally unnatural (the piece 
magically appearing there from nowhere, rather than moving there with the 
constant speed that it'll maintain later on).  It would probably feel even 
worse with the "smooth" setting enabled.

The piece not appearing immediately gives you more time to do stuff with it.  
Your proposed change would make the game a bit harder (effectively decreasing 
the height by a row or two).

I also recommend you to enable "shadow", that way you can immediately see the 
new piece's shape and current rotation, even though it hasn't fully entered the 
canvas yet.

Original comment by egm...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2015 at 8:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

That's how it is on every other game buddy. TetriNET, Blockbox, Nullpomino all 
the official Tetris games... 

Why do you want to cause me delay in identifying the piece?

Original comment by tetrispl...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2015 at 8:10

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Also the piece preview is way too close to the incoming block. If you don't 
take any consideration into fixing either of these issues then I'm sorry but 
the game is a turd.

Original comment by tetrispl...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2015 at 8:12

[GoogleCodeExporter]

You might have realized that Quadra is different from "all the official Tetris 
games" in some other aspects, too.

I don't want you to delay identifying the piece at all.  That's why I 
recommended you to enable the "shadow" option, have you tried that?

Changing the behavior would also raise compatibility issues with replaying 
previously recorded games, or users of different versions playing against each 
other.

I'm not a developer of the game, just an occasional player.  I really doubt 
that calling the game "turd" will convince developers about your request.  If I 
was a developer, your manners would cause me to close the bug right now without 
even considering fixing it.

Original comment by egm...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2015 at 8:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I just loaded up Tetris Ultimate for XBox One, and that's not *exactly* what it 
does.  There is a thing sliver of a row above the top row that isn't an area 
where you would play in, but is an area where you can see the piece.  IIRC, 
that would be quite difficult to implement here, but definitely something to 
consider.

Also keep in mind if you turn on the shadow in the options, you can fully see 
the next piece AND where it would land in the stack if you hard dropped it.

Regarding your comment on issue #2, the floating next pieces just shows the 
next 3 pieces in the well above the shadow.

"...then I'm sorry but the game is a turd."

Obviously tact is not your strongest skill.

Original comment by ron...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2015 at 8:23

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

My apologies for coming across as a snot. I'm familiar with shadow/ghost piece 
and I'm okay playing with or without it on other games. You proved me wrong on 
the incoming blocks at the top. 

However, when staring at the shadow piece I hope you both will acknowledge that 
it is difficult to determine in your peripheral vision what piece is coming 
next. It may be a problem with the colors and/or may be the distance between 
the piece preview and the ghost piece. I still think it is an issue that the 
new piece is extremely close to the piece preview. It is hard to go fast on 
your game. I hop on any other game and I am playing 3-4 times faster. My 
settings are on the fastest.

So you tell me what the problem is.

Original comment by tetrispl...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2015 at 9:14

[GoogleCodeExporter]

[deleted comment]

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Do help me understand why you took the time working on this small 1.3.0 patch 
when there are 4+ other PC Tetris games that are miles ahead of Quadra both in 
mechanics, speed, and handling which I will name: Blockbox, TetriNET2, 
Blocktrix, Nullpomino, Cultris 2. Would either of you really play Quadra over 
any of those? I'll tell you what you should actually invest in. Acquire the 
TetriNET2 source code and start designing a TetriNET3. Implement the new 
generation t-spins/combos into it but keep it simple. It will be a huge hit to 
the Harddrop.com community. Hell I would pay you $300 or more just to atleast 
get to a prototype of it.

Original comment by tetrispl...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2015 at 9:41

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Do help me understand why you're here trolling if Quadra sucks so much in your 
opinion. Could you just please move along and play with games you like?

I bet Quadra's developers are super grateful for you telling them what they 
should invest in. I also have two or three hobby software projects, you're 
welcome to tell me what I should do with them. (No.)

> Hell I would pay you $300

Per day? In that case I'm happy to work on it :)

Original comment by egm...@gmail.com on 1 Mar 2015 at 11:08

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I started playing this game in 2001.  There were a few things I didn't like 
about it.  However, I did not come here berating this game and saying that the 
other Tetris games out there were better... I instead went and spent time on it 
to MAKE it better.  I wrote 4 patches to the game, one of which was integrated 
into the source.

If YOU want to add something to the game to make it better, here's a hint: on 
projects like this that are not being actively developed or are being developed 
slowly as a side project, the developers are only going to work on things that 
interest them.  Want something else done?

Do it yourself.

Original comment by ron...@gmail.com on 2 Mar 2015 at 12:09

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I didn't have any intentions on bashing Quadra or insulting any of you, I had 
certain expectations I guess. For a game that was made back in 2000 it is 
pretty good. Sorry for what I said here, delete it if you want.

Original comment by puref...@gmail.com on 2 Mar 2015 at 4:20