Is the 200-minute limit effective?

[TerribleTadpole]

It's done. The client doesn't tell you what has happened, but it does tell you who it has happened to. You have to log in to view the actual events themselves.

In my view, this is revolutionary. It has the potential to solve the problem that has always plagued groups trying to undertake coordinated action: How can we know when to check our events?

[SekoETC]

One problem is that you cannot choose to ignore events such as hunting and sneezing, or people whispering to someone else than you. If people could choose for each character what they want and what they don't want to light up the character, it would reduce "false positives", or people checking a character just to realize it's nothing they would care about and go back to the list without actually doing anything.

[marol]

Client development was stopped due to lack of time.

Bandwidth is no longer a problem. Time limit solves some other problems, as it has been mentioned many times on forum.

Please refer to:
http://cantr.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=269532#269532

[Solfius]

Bandwidth is no longer a problem. Time limit solves some other problems, as it has been mentioned many times on forum.

Please refer to:
http://cantr.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=269532#269532

Just showing my Cantr age then...

[marginoferror]

If there are no longer bandwidth or server load concerns, then there's no point in measuring bandwidth or server load during a moratorium like I suggested. But I hope to revisit this issue later - if the explicit goal of the 200-minute limit now is to influence gaming habits, I'm not sure if that's an appropriate goal or if this is a good way to do it.