Whisper messages
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
- Posts: 706
- Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Whisper messages
Hello, I didn't really want to start a whole new topic for this but...
Whenever I try to send a private message/whisper in the 1.8.5 multiplayer lobby, I have a 17 character limit. Obviously, this is very annoying. No one else seems to have this problem. Am I doing something wrong?
Whenever I try to send a private message/whisper in the 1.8.5 multiplayer lobby, I have a 17 character limit. Obviously, this is very annoying. No one else seems to have this problem. Am I doing something wrong?
Re: Whisper messages
I just tested this: I also get a limit if I try to send a message by double-clicking someone's name.
I don't get any limit, however, by using the /msg (or :msg in game) command.
I don't get any limit, however, by using the /msg (or :msg in game) command.
-
- Posts: 706
- Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Re: Whisper messages
So, is this a bug or intentional?
Re: Whisper messages
it is intentional and very annoying. it was not always like this.
Re: Whisper messages
Why does it do that? I can't see a good reason for splitting whisper messages into tiny little chunks like that. If it's meant to stop something, it can't even do that because /msg playername still allows for full length messages (thank the gods).
Re: Whisper messages
What makes you sure that it is intentional?Rigor wrote:it is intentional and very annoying. it was not always like this.
Re: Whisper messages
Firstly are you double clicking on the person's name.
Secondly if you are then use either:
1. /msg <insert name here> <insert message here>
2. /m <insert name here> <insert message here>
3. /whisper <insert name here> <insert message here>
^ There might be more but I can't remember
And the reason if so, is because people are using the typing commands rather than the clicking method.
And I'm pretty sure its a bug the double clicking on the name message. Unless someone might inform me otherwise!
Secondly if you are then use either:
1. /msg <insert name here> <insert message here>
2. /m <insert name here> <insert message here>
3. /whisper <insert name here> <insert message here>
^ There might be more but I can't remember
And the reason if so, is because people are using the typing commands rather than the clicking method.
And I'm pretty sure its a bug the double clicking on the name message. Unless someone might inform me otherwise!
Last edited by cookie on April 8th, 2011, 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bye says the cookie.
Re: Whisper messages
Don't include the < and > for the name and message.
I gave similar instructions to someone last night, and they found that unclear
I gave similar instructions to someone last night, and they found that unclear
-
- Posts: 706
- Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Re: Whisper messages
Well, seeing as everyone here has the same issue, it seems like someone intended for it to work that way. Even so, I think it should be changed to match the character limit on the /msg way. I think I'll post this as a feature request.fabi wrote:What makes you sure that it is intentional?
Re: Whisper messages
No, if it is a bug what I expect it to be, everyone here would have the same issue as well.Insinuator wrote:Well, seeing as everyone here has the same issue, it seems like someone intended for it to work that way. Even so, I think it should be changed to match the character limit on the /msg way. I think I'll post this as a feature request.fabi wrote:What makes you sure that it is intentional?
Filling a bug report instead of a feature request is the best way to get it solved.
Re: Whisper messages
From what I remember it was intentional. You can take a look here, when the limit was added.
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php ... 58#p352428
But yes, obviously it's a bug.
http://forums.wesnoth.org/viewtopic.php ... 58#p352428
But yes, obviously it's a bug.
-
- Posts: 706
- Joined: January 6th, 2004, 10:42 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
Re: Whisper messages
Thanks for the link, Mich. That makes sense now. It is actually an intentional bug workaround to solve a bug. So both, kind of. Hopefully this can be truly fixed, however.