Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Idea that could be added #695

Closed
proJM-Coding opened this issue May 26, 2022 · 19 comments
Closed

Idea that could be added #695

proJM-Coding opened this issue May 26, 2022 · 19 comments
Labels
enhancement A new feature or general improvement to LiveSplit One. support Someone is asking for support.

Comments

@proJM-Coding
Copy link

Could we have a different mode where you aim to get more time? Like a toggle for the colours?

@LukeSaward1
Copy link

???
What do you mean?

@proJM-Coding
Copy link
Author

Sorry if I was unclear. I think a button or mode that changes the colours so when you are slower than your PB it will turn green, not red. Like a toggle for people that aim to get more time not lose time.

@wooferzfg
Copy link
Member

You can already customize the colors in the Layout settings.

@proJM-Coding
Copy link
Author

proJM-Coding commented May 26, 2022

I know but I think that it would be a cool and helpful feature if you could swap all the colours with a press of a button instead of doing it manually. Your PB would also be saved as your longest time not your shortest.

@proJM-Coding
Copy link
Author

This could be added on live split also.

@LukeSaward1
Copy link

Again, as wooferzfg said, you are already able to customize the colors in the layout settings in both LS One and LiveSplit.

@proJM-Coding
Copy link
Author

Again, as wooferzfg said, you are already able to customize the colors in the layout settings in both LS One and LiveSplit.

I know this but your PB is saved as your fastest time, not slowest. This is the same for some other features.

@LukeSaward1
Copy link

PB stands for Personal Best, not Personal Worst.

@proJM-Coding
Copy link
Author

PB stands for Personal Best, not Personal Worst.

What if you aim to get more time not lose time?

@proJM-Coding
Copy link
Author

This is just an idea and if you don't want to do it I can close the issue.

@just-ero
Copy link

just-ero commented Jun 3, 2022

I think people are missing the point. There are games where the goal is to get the highest time possible per level; there is a level timer which counts down, the earlier the level is finished, the higher the end time will be. This can already be set on speedrun.com for example, under the "Timer ascending" setting for each category.

Perhaps another use of this would be to count "time alive", or even (don't get angry) score count (via an auto splitter that sets the time to the current score), where the higher time would result in a better PB. Although I do agree that this isn't exactly the use of a speedrun timer, I think simply adding a toggle to the splits to check "time ascending" wouldn't hurt.

@proJM-Coding
Copy link
Author

I think people are missing the point. There are games where the goal is to get the highest time possible per level; there is a level timer which counts down, the earlier the level is finished, the higher the end time will be. This can already be set on speedrun.com for example, under the "Timer ascending" setting for each category.

Perhaps another use of this would be to count "time alive", or even (don't get angry) score count (via an auto splitter that sets the time to the current score), where the higher time would result in a better PB. Although I do agree that this isn't exactly the use of a speedrun timer, I think simply adding a toggle to the splits to check "time ascending" wouldn't hurt.

Imagine a survival game with 5 waves and then it is infinite play through. You would like to use live split because of the splits and graph feature. Would it just make sense to have a mode so you can gain time and not aim to lose time?

@just-ero
Copy link

just-ero commented Jun 3, 2022

I don't think using LiveSplit for this purpose makes sense in the first place.

@proJM-Coding
Copy link
Author

I don't think using LiveSplit for this purpose makes sense in the first place.

why do you think that?

@just-ero
Copy link

just-ero commented Jun 4, 2022

Timing a potentially infinitely long section seems pointless. Aside from that, it sounds like you would like to time the first 5 waves by "fastest time beaten", but want to time the final, infinite wave by "longest time alive". That's mixing timing methods and doesn't really make sense.

@proJM-Coding
Copy link
Author

My point is that I think that a stopwatch for gaining time and not losing time would be helpful, especially with all the features live split has. If you don't want to add this, I will just close the issues. If it is added, thank you because I think this would be really helpful.

@CryZe
Copy link
Collaborator

CryZe commented Jun 6, 2022

I'm experimenting a lot with letting auto splitters provide custom key value pairs that can be visualized as columns and automatically updating text components atm. This allows visualizing values like deaths and score. I definitely want to explore custom PB conditions as well.

@proJM-Coding
Copy link
Author

I'm experimenting a lot with letting auto splitters provide custom key value pairs that can be visualized as columns and automatically updating text components atm. This allows visualizing values like deaths and score. I definitely want to explore custom PB conditions as well.

Thanks, I hope you add it.

@CryZe
Copy link
Collaborator

CryZe commented Mar 28, 2023

I'm closing this in favor of the following issue: LiveSplit/livesplit-core#656

@CryZe CryZe closed this as completed Mar 28, 2023
@CryZe CryZe added enhancement A new feature or general improvement to LiveSplit One. support Someone is asking for support. labels Mar 28, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement A new feature or general improvement to LiveSplit One. support Someone is asking for support.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants