test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Admiralty auto fill.

aftulusaftulus Member Posts: 668 Arc User
Can we get a semi good auto fill button for admiralty. something that at least gets 100% if possible out of the available cards. I want to use the system, but I hate filling it out. Having a minimum option, even with low crit, would be great for me. Then people can auto fill and adjust the cards if desired for higher crit chance.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on


  • dojihajimedojihajime Member Posts: 29 Arc User
    I dream of this!
    Star Trek Online Player

    City of Heroes Refugee
  • autobotgoldbugautobotgoldbug Member Posts: 59 Arc User
    only if they fix the autofill on the duty officer one
    I keep getting autofills with DOffs that are not qualified just because they are a "higher" quality
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,230 Arc User
    There is also the problem that you cannot turn on protection for the special R&D doffs so the system tends to grab them for risky doff missions. That is especially bad when the stuck card bug is going since it prevents checking the doffs to make sure they are not those hard to get R&D ones.
  • discojer2#5455 discojer2 Member Posts: 40 Arc User
    Admiralty (and alts) is probably the biggest cause of dilithium inflation in the game. I can't imagine they would ever do anything to make admiralty even easier to farm
  • chastity1337chastity1337 Member Posts: 1,603 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    I would even be happy if we could simply get a text-search bar added, as we have with inventory and bank. So that if we already know which card we want to use, we don't have to scroll-hunt for it.

    The scroll hunt problem is mostly one created by single-use cards not stacking. Hundreds of them. Not. Stacking.

    This, agreed. Every now and then I will go through and use them all in a thoroughly profligate manner, just to unclutter inventory.
  • phoenixc#0738 phoenixc Member Posts: 5,230 Arc User
    edited September 2021
    Searching for the names of ships is not that much of a problem either way, what would really be handy is suggestions on combinations, sort of like how the doff missions are now. That would probably require a complete redesign of the Admiralty UI though so I doubt it would be here very quickly if the devs ever did decide to do it.
  • foxrockssocksfoxrockssocks Member Posts: 2,482 Arc User
    There are enough UI issues with admiralty that theres no reason not to do multiple solutions. Its not text bar search OR stacking single use cards. They should be doing both and more.
  • borg0vermindborg0vermind Member Posts: 498 Arc User
    westmetals wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    I would even be happy if we could simply get a text-search bar added, as we have with inventory and bank. So that if we already know which card we want to use, we don't have to scroll-hunt for it.

    The scroll hunt problem is mostly one created by single-use cards not stacking. Hundreds of them. Not. Stacking.

    I specifically posted what I did because your preferred solution - making one time use cards stackable - does absolutely nothing for people whose problem is permanent cards (which people can have in similar numbers). While this solves the issue for everyone.

    While I'm sure there's something to that, there aren't anywhere *NEAR* as many different ships in the game as any of my captains have of single-use cards. And while you might think a 'name filter' search system would be better, I can assure that actually using something like that dozens of times a day, per captain, would get every bit as irritating as scroll-hunting through many hundreds of ship cards.

    I'm going to just leave your judgmental "you don't understand the problem" attitude and say this...

    It is in fact possible to have "hundreds" of permanent cards. And the search-bar is a technology that already exists in game (as I cited) as an alternative... it just has not been made available in this context.

    If you think typing in cards names over and over is going to make things faster, by all means, continue thinking that, but go about claiming all your ships that way through the ship vendor or c-store UI. You will quickly discover it's just exchanging two equal annoyances. It's not any faster or more convenient. Just different.

    a) claiming the ships from the shipyard/c-store is now automatic
    b) claiming the ships from the shipyard/c-store only had to be done once anyway

    I'm just saying, if I can look at a particular mission and say to myself "oh, these are the exact ships I need for this", then why should I have to scroll-hunt for them?

    For example, I have two specific trios of ships that can be used for the later level Tour of Duty assignments as they add up to over 100/100/100 and cancel all modifiers.

    The point was not about the cards. It was to give you a test of the system you think you want. You can go to the c-store or the ship vendor and type in ship names. I'm trying to tell you that you'll spend just as much time wrangling with the UI, just in a different way. It won't be any faster or more convenient. Right now, on my newest captains who haven't collected mountains of single-use cards, I can scroll to the exact ship I want in about 1/2 a second (I know exactly where they are). But after a year or so? The list is so bloated with single-use cards that scrolling just a couple pixels will blow right past the ship I was looking for.

    Of course, given the flaky behavior of other UIs in STO, there's no guarantee that *ANY* change they make to admiralty ship searching wouldn't end up being equally annoying. See: doff filters.

    So you know better than I do what I think I want.

    Even though you claim that what I'm proposing will not be faster or more convenient when, in fact, it would be.

    And also, memorizing where the cards belong does not work (at least for me), both because of the single use cards as you pointed out, but also because cards that are in use are not displayed, which then affects the placement of their usual neighbors.

    But you are the self-appointed expert on all things (even when speaking to someone who has been playing since before Admiralty existed & has 5x as many forum posts as you do). Therefore I must be wrong, and anything I can say you're just going to keep discounting or trying to argue into oblivion.

    Got it.

    As someone with experience in UI and UX design, yeah, I kind of do have an idea of what you think you want, why you think you want it, and that as much as you *THINK* it's what you want, it's not going to do *WHAT* you want. You want to be able to find the card you're looking for faster. You're looking for convenience. And I just showed you how to 'experience' the system you think you want right now, and once you actually try interacting with said system, you will find it will be every bit as inconvenient and no more expedient than the system already in place. Go ahead. Time it. See how quickly you can 'search' for a group of ships on the c-store vs how long it takes you to fill in those same cards in the admiralty roster. The difference, if any at all, will be negligible at best.

    There's a reason why the User Experience development role exists -- they translate what users think they want into workable systems and features that provide them with what they actually want. And honestly, what users ACTUALLY want, in this instance, is the ability to designate 'favorites' -- specific combinations of ships that they can use to fill in admiralty assignments all at once. But that's probably going to require an overhaul of the admiralty UI to do, which is unlikely to ever happen, given how low of a priority it is compared to everything else. But the same is also true of stacking single-use cards, too. The "1x" text in front of these cards isn't designating a quantity. It's additional flavor text attached to the card name for the user's benefit (ie, "FYI, this card can only be used once"). Adding additional search methods, like you want, is probably more feasible, but it's just another version of clunky, given the way ships cards are named.

    Oh so you're an "expert"... and you just off the handle assumed that I'm not. Or that I will change my mind once I have "properly experienced the system" despite my telling you that I already have.

    And by the way, I did exactly as you asked and timed it... and it took roughly half the time.

    And... yes... I would want a favorites option, as you say, ALSO... but I had dismissed it as too complicated, given the amount of work it would take and how STO's programmers seem to be both stretched, and preferring to work on new things rather than fix old things. A text-search could be implemented much easier since it already exists in game, it just has not been applied to admiralty.

    But I see your attitude. You want to reach for the best option, and trample out any discussion of any more reasonable alternatives.

    I've seen in real life how well that works out.... the perpetrator ended up uprooting his entire business and relocating it to a city that hates him almost as much as the one he left.

    You're the one fixating on a solution that doesn't actually solve the underlying problem.

    This from the person who is insisting that the underlying problem is caused by single-use cards, and willfully ignoring anyone who says it's also a problem with permanent cards.

    Spare me your misplaced superiority.

    Condensing single-use cards does actually help with the scroll-search issue. Adding a text search doesn't make filling out admiralty missions any quicker or less tedious. Between the two of them, which one actually improves the admiralty system?

    1. Single-cards must stack.
    2. Auto-fill must ignore them or have the possibility to do so. I only use them as emergency resort, when other non-consumables are not available.
    3. Filtering options - need.

    No search needed, just good filtering.
    Just selecting e/s/t by highest value sort would be gold compared to what we have.

This discussion has been closed.