test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Specific Feedback for DoFF UI (as per Stoked Interview)
imruined
Member Posts: 1,457 Arc User
In response to 'subjective ranting' deflection, my feedback is as follows :
UI - it works - information is there, don't personally like the mobile APP look, but it's functional...
Filtering/Sorting Doffs - still needs more work (barely works at present) - do not automatically select ALL Doff Classes...
Critical focus in Doff Algorithm - consideration still needs to be given to failure rate as a 1% critical chance increase is NOT worth an 8% failure increase because the wrong class of Doffs are being selected...
Very Rare Materials - it's pretty clear after many Elite STF's (having not received a single Very Rare Material reward) that the new R&D system has been developed around monetisation via CStore R&D boxes - I understand Cryptic are a business, but this is a terrible choice for a pay-gate as it will significantly deter players from R&D and such monetisation can create resentment amongst existing players and deter new players as there is a perceived lack of 'fairness' in this form of monetisation...
Attitude of Captain Geko - Seems considerably dismissive of player feedback... Even toxic negative feedback is feedback, if alot of people are 'just ranting', then alot of people are clearly very upset and this should at least be acknowledged and not simply discarded... As to Captain Gecko just ignoring valid feedback as a result, this will not improve the player's perception of the changes... Clear open discussion is the only way to address this and may also assist him understanding player disatisfaction with the updated UI...
UI - it works - information is there, don't personally like the mobile APP look, but it's functional...
Filtering/Sorting Doffs - still needs more work (barely works at present) - do not automatically select ALL Doff Classes...
Critical focus in Doff Algorithm - consideration still needs to be given to failure rate as a 1% critical chance increase is NOT worth an 8% failure increase because the wrong class of Doffs are being selected...
Very Rare Materials - it's pretty clear after many Elite STF's (having not received a single Very Rare Material reward) that the new R&D system has been developed around monetisation via CStore R&D boxes - I understand Cryptic are a business, but this is a terrible choice for a pay-gate as it will significantly deter players from R&D and such monetisation can create resentment amongst existing players and deter new players as there is a perceived lack of 'fairness' in this form of monetisation...
Attitude of Captain Geko - Seems considerably dismissive of player feedback... Even toxic negative feedback is feedback, if alot of people are 'just ranting', then alot of people are clearly very upset and this should at least be acknowledged and not simply discarded... As to Captain Gecko just ignoring valid feedback as a result, this will not improve the player's perception of the changes... Clear open discussion is the only way to address this and may also assist him understanding player disatisfaction with the updated UI...
The entitlement is strong in these forums...
Post edited by imruined on
0
Comments
I've been here since beta
That has just reminded me of another point...
Assignments which cannot be done, such as missing the right Doffs or commodities should show up red - I had put this down to simply being incomplete however..
- Information is scattered around and buried.
- UI elements that are just far too big, meaning people can only have a very limited number of assignments or doffs up on screen at once.
Ahh, if only there was a "darnified UI" or "skyUI" style mod for this game...
I agree. To be honest, I think it was an afterthought that was just grabbed from the old UI and tacked on to the new one in a barely functional manner. That's if it even works. It hasn't auto filled for me at all since yesterday, which means that the whole thing actually takes longer than it did before with the old UI. So much for the "but it's faster this way" argument.
A bit of a pain, but I can live with that.
This. He has shown once again that he has little but contempt for the player-base.
Imo, the best thing that could be done with the doff UI from a players point of view, is a reversion to the old one.
Best wishes
Lyretha
Welcome...
To...
STO.
It's not just Geko, either. They breed this attitude internally, and has been perpetuated for nigh on 3 years now. They have openly dismissed every kind of criticism in the past and were called out on it repeatedly. They started ignoring people, starting wiping all negative comments from forums with heavy-handed mods, etc. They have blinders on. The sad thing is they don't even play this game so they don't know the end results. They're totally money grubbing at this point. They just DON'T care.
The real problem with the algorithm is that it is currently susceptible to "success poisoning", where if a doff has the highest number of Crit traits, AND poisonous success attributes, it will be chosen and poison the mission.
Already Filed a bug report on that but I'll put it in this thread as feedback too. Also, it's very hard to read the number over the requirements if the icon is red. Red on Red is hard for me to see, that number for requirements should be white over red, easier to read.
Defending The Galaxy By Breaking One Starfleet Regulation After The Next.
It also doesn't seem to update on the fly if you do manage to get the resources needed for a doff assignment while you have the window open on an assignment that needed stuff. Where before it would update automatically and let you start, now it forces you to close the doff window and then try the whole thing again. Minor annoyance.
Speaking of doffs I don't think we need multiple icons if more than one of the same type of doff is required. The best example of this is the Extended Wilderness Survival mission. It requires three doffs of any type and we have three separate icons. This is redundant, we only need one icon with a little number inside it (In this case, the number three).
Side scrolling would be okay if it were more obvious they were side scrolling, with helpful UI elements like arrows that a mouse user could hover or click on.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Not everyone forgot this.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=18173851&postcount=28
Anyway, I'm not a game developer, it's not my job, so I don't have anything objective to say about it really. My subjective feedback is that the new Doff UI is an improvement over the last one. The algorithm for selecting the Doffs has worked better for me so far and resulted in increased assignment crits. Although I admit it's not perfect. Since I'm going with it and trusting it I just hit select mission then hit the start button so overall it's a much faster process than it was before.
On a PC screen, the UI does appear too large, spaced out and clunky, but it does seem like it would translate better to mobile applications as they mentioned was the intent. I would like being able to do my Doffing and crafting from Gateway.
Collapsing categories needs to be persistent.
If I collapse military, to select colonial, I don't need military uncollapsing every time I select a mission.
And, if we're talking specific feedback, those at Cryptic charged with gathering it need to get a lot better at their job. Because if Mr Rivera was under the impression that it was all ranting, they're clearly utterly failing to do that job.
This is NOT "Specific Feedback for DOff UI (as per Stoked Interview)"
* The feedback provided does NOT provide a compelling reason to make UI changes.
As someone with 20+ years of Fortune 100 experience in Silicon Valley (which I'm tired of qualifying, but shows why I'm speaking the way I am), this is NOT how Cryptic/PWE would consume feedback.
Folks, as you provide feedback, HERE ARE COMMON SENSE EXAMPLES of what you're not providing in your summaries:
- impacts to your playing time (such as providing specific data to demonstrate how long you initiated a DOff activity in the former system, vs the new system)
- demonstrating how usability is impacting your playability, e.g. lack of font size scaling for accessibility concerns; too much screen clutters (icons) resulting in poor user experience, plus increased play time to sort what icons mean, inability to understand icons due to strong red color used; desire for greyed-out buttons when "Submit" function isn't possible, etc.
- feature requests. Differentiate between the testing UI and your idea for an overhauled UI; do not mix-and-match the feedback; these are two separate things. Cryptic is naturally going to consider the testing UI feedback ONLY. (We can only hope they'd consider other options.)
- use logic, not passionate emotionalism. Give exact reasons. Be specific.
FRANKLY SPEAKING, IT IS CRYPTIC's RESPONSIBILITY to define how they want feedback provided during testing.
I've made suggestions in other threads how Cryptic/PWE should conduct their testing cycles with the community. I'd gladly have lunch with anyone over there who wants to talk shop, bounce ideas, listen to some guidance. There are various program approaches which fit nicely into an Agile model, among other software development methodologies.
They'd have a happier player community, imho.
I realize the average player isn't going to provide ideal feedback. This has nothing to do with being a gamer community. But, folks, start providing specifics (with supporting data).
Everything I'm about to say is meant strictly as constructive criticism, with no intention to offend you or anyone else. I know you can't hear that I have no "tone" in my voice through forums, so just wanted to state that clearly.
If this type of feedback is the only thing developers will pay attention to, and if this is the expectation for Star Trek Online, then there are many fools trying to stand before the wind. The simple fact is that most of the general population has no capacity - even if they wanted to spend the time - to provide that level of feedback.
I, too, work in online marketing & program development. My clients are spending $200k+ at a minimum for a single product, and tens of thousands just to have me on-site with them for a few days. Despite all that money flying around, even they can't figure out how to provide this level of feedback because that isn't their skillset.
The level of feedback you're saying the developers will pay attention to (I haven't listened to the interview, so I'm just interpreting what you posted) requires a mindset of time tracking, log compiling, lexicon, and other things that the vast majority of people don't have. While that sort of detailed bug report is monumentally more helpful, 100 people saying, "WTF happened to the UI?" also clearly demonstrates that there is some problem that needs to be investigated - or at least clarified.
A good developer doesn't insist that all feedback has to come in "my way or the highway" because they'll rarely get it (especially in an environment where people aren't being paid to spend the time QCing). A good developer listens to their clients, interprets as best they can, digs into server/database logs to see what the user was doing that might have caused the problems, and follows up with the user to get additional details. I have not seen any evidence that this is happening. I can understand why no one would want to slog through the venom in the forums, but actively showing effort might at least inspire a few "white knights" to stand up.
If what you indicate is the only real type of feedback taken, then the only answer is for Cryptic to build a genuine focus group/advisory council of selected and vetted players. Expectations can be set, BugHerd/Basecamp/RedMine/Special Forums/whatever accounts can be given out, and a clear chain of communication can be established. Expecting that out of the whole community is just standing against the wind.
Personally, I'd love to see them form that group, and I think they've got a potential goldmine that could help dramatically if they actively listen and recruit.
To me, the single most egregious thing with this "9.5 fiasco" isn't any of the game changes (although I'm very unhappy with a number of them) but the seeming lack of respect or even attention to the players' (their clients) concerns. Even if it's untrue, that's how it comes across, and that is simply inexcusable for any business.
^So Legit. But who can tell Al Rivera to stop treating his player base (read:customers) like a bunch of whiny children? No one will call him out on it that is in his circle of influence. The podcast hosts won't. So this all seems like a big waste of time and energy.
And the massively.joystiq.com branch of the Cryptic Defense Force blowing rainbows and sunshine up the devs' rear ends doesn't help matters either.
It's to the point where Cryptic could start charging real money to replenish your torpedo stock and they would still defend it.
Star Trek: The Original Grind
Star Trek: The Next Grind
Star Trek: Deep Space Grind
Star Trek: Voyage to the Grind
These posts sum up my feelings on the matter as well. With the current attitudes from developers, it discourages me from testing and further makes me not want to play the game at all. The dev team need to have a lot more respect for those who take the time to test what they clearly can't be bothered to and to take the feedback, ranting included, and put in an effort to make this game better for everyone.
> <
> <
>
In the last UI I could look at a glace, see what I need pop it in and go.. with this one I can't tell heads or tails of what most of those things are.. Maybe it would come with practice again, IF I was willing to put that time in. Which for these Devs and PWE I am not currently feeling that willing to. I can understand the sad position Devs are put in at times, they are stuck in the middle of a greedy company and an angry player base. It wears on you over time.
This is where I'm going to respectfully disagree with you...
I'd rather something, than nothing... That 1% is not worth failing completely IMO as, failing completely, means I get absolutely nothing in return for the time taken to perform the assignment...
The 1% for an 8% failure was in fact for the Fleet Dilithium Mine 'Mine Dilithium Motherlode' assignment, so an 8% failure increase, for a 1% increased chance of extra dilithium is not a wise bet... In the long run, you are going to most likely fail more assignments than you will get criticals on from that extra 1%...
This in itself highlights part of the problem, as there are clearly 2 schools of thought on Doffing... Either go 'all-in' and hope for big returns or hedging your bets for a steady but more guaranteed return on your assignments...
Cut most of it... All I'm gonna say is this...
Clearly, this is all my fault... Sorry my lowly gamer communication skills are not up to the necessary level for my opinions to matter a damn in yours (and apparently Cryptic's) eyes...
I still stand by what I said, it was specific enough regarding the points I still have issues with as far as I am concerned... So what if I didn't format or word my statements to your liking, get off your damn'd high horse... Next time, rather than give me a damn'd lecture, if there's a better way, make some polite recommendations and spare me the condescension...
You claim not to be defending what Geko said, but as far as I am concerned, the tone you took is at best justifying such behaviour because apparently, gamer's can't communicate effectively enough to provide feedback in a manner which programmers can understand...
Frankly, I had to wonder if you were on Cryptic's payroll...
The problem, to me, is plain and simple: There was nothing really wrong with the UI. At all. Nothing that justifies this change and it was really not a good one at that...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My thoughts as well. It's nice if people that have an inside scoop can give more precise feedback on what they think is specifically wrong, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the critisicm can just be dismissed with a "be more precise or **** the hell off"-attitude.
If the engine on a car is acting up and you bring it to the shop, it's nice if certain customers can pinpoint the problem to make it a bit easier for the mechanic to fix, but the same mechanic will also have to work with customers that come in and simply tell them "the car sounds funny".
Considering the condescending attitudes certain cryptic employees have taken up towards their customers in a few, current interviews, they should watch out that the discontent with their latest patch/product doesn't swing around into personal hate against them...
Seriously, I see no logical reason why it needed revamped in the first place. The Impression I got from TTC's Priority One interview is he thought it was bad, but yet the community had no trouble with it. So who is right, the community or him? :rolleyes:
Okay Feedback:
First thing I see is those LARGE Mission Boxes. To me it's too large and blurs things all together. The Title needs to stand out more, the Rarity blends in with it so large, when it was smaller it was easier to identify.
No DOFF Job Description, or even a Brief Description is provided.
The reward - I honestly don't care what the little various things that end up as the reward. If it's a singular item, I want to know it. If its an Impulse Engine, I expect to see show one. If it's a DOFF exchange or Recruitment, I don't want to get the answers from the results.
DOFFs used - Saying it's "Science" or "Tactical" doesn't tell me diddly when the missions ask for DOFFs with Specific Jobs.
Having the compress buttons make no sense given it opens up again if you open it. If we wanted specific tasks, we should have something that filters that out in the first place.
Selecting the mission, it properly shows the results. But if it's asking for a commodity, sometimes the window is too small that you can't see it at all. Something frequent with exploration cluster missions. And it's annoying that you cant purchase it there and then, you have to open the replicator and lose your place and start all over.
Bar Graph, I can live with it, but the Pie Chart was more far more pleasing to the eye.
Selecting DOFFS - This by far is the MOST annoying aspect of the new changes.
1) Chooses on Criticals than Success, which lowers the odds of a successful mission.
2) You go to change, it brings up that ANNOYING side window that you have to scroll down to find the DOFF you want, which TAKES FOREVER, even with the new Filter. Not to mention it causes severe lag when you open it up!
3) The Filter is stupid, having everything checked off? How about it be unchecked?
Honestly, this is why the old DOFF UI was better, you could quickly find the DOFF you needed and assigned.
DOFF missions NOT Listed in Chronological Order. So finding a 45 minute mission is a major pain. Another reason why the old UI was better.
Mission times are in "teeny" little text. :rolleyes:
So why don't revert the changes, Cryptic? Go back to the old one, because the new one really sucks. It's unfriendly and unintuitive.
The old system would give us 5/10 Stem bolts needed for the mission. Now it just says 10 Stem bolts. Do I guess how many I need? Do I fly back to ESD to see my bank inventory? Oh, I have 5 Stem bolts. Got to buy 5 move then fly back to Andoria. Do I purchase 10 or buy just 1 at a time until I reach a total of 10? Oh, and then after acquiring the required 10, you have to go back thru the list and find the mission again because the mission will not auto-update itself as to your inventory.
It wouldnt have been that hard to carry that small feature over. It isnt hard to carry over any of the old features either. The new system is just pathetically done, all flash and no substance.