I've noticed this for a few years but kept forgetting to make a post.

When I'm trick or treating, once I've ToTed you, Krin, you still show up for me if I go back to you using the left arrow key (but not able to be ToTed). But if I go back to you using the right arrow key, I get some random other player (but not able to be ToTed). It's always a fairly low-level player, judging by their avatars and every now and then it changes to a different random player. I think maybe it's displaying the newest player in the game? Not sure, though. Right now it's player 169151.

So once I've ToTed everyone in the game, it ends up with a situation where if I use the left arrow key it cycles between my own page and yours, Krin. But if I use the right arrow key, it cycles between some other random player I've already ToTed and my own page.

I don't think this is necessarily a bug. The code is probably just defaulting to the first valid result if there's no other results, which is me since I'm Player ID #1.

Fair enough. It just feels like it shouldn't display anyone if they're not ToT-able. Like it should just always show me my own page. And it feels weird that it displays you when I go to the left and some random other player when I go to the right.

So I guess even if the code is functioning as designed, I would question why it's designed to function this way haha. Because from a subjective player experience perspective, it feels like a bug.

Without digging through the code to look at it, I believe for features like this I always have the ultimate fail safe be = ID #1. Because I know that will always exist.

It's possible for someone to input all sorts of nonsense - like User ID apple, or User ID 92384923489234, etc. So the default is always, "Can't find valid, go to ID #1".

I imagine what it's doing is trying to find a "valid" option, can't, and so then it just hits the bottom option of going to ID #1. I also know that I handle (at least back when this was coded many years ago) "Previous" and "Next" differently as they are slightly different logics. So that could explain why it only does this when going in a certain direction.

In total, we have almost 170,000 accounts at this point. So you have to take some shortcuts to prevent the code from trying to parse literally 170,000 accounts every time. If I were to code a feature like this now, I'd probably do it with a different approach and do it in a more efficient way - this Trick or Treating feature was coded many many years ago. But, alas, that's just how it's coded. =P

Yeah, from a comp sci perspective, that makes sense if it's coded that way. Just thought I'd point out the clunky way it works in case it was easily fixable. But I guess it'll just be like this until the feature is overhauled haha.