We need your feedback - Test Server UI Changes!

[LethoOfGulet]

Colonies are Game in the Game. Not the part of the game.....

That's why they need reworking from the ground up

[BB_Alex]

That's why they need reworking from the ground up

And this is the exact challenge!

To be able to achieve the required goals to make PvP or even the Guilds more connected to the game, it does require an almost complete rework of the core mechanics related t those feature.

Internally I refer to this as the "lagacy code". The Code is set into stone right now, sometimes it is even "hard coded", which means you, as a designer have no influence on how it works or how it is balanced. To be able to have some sort of influence on it, you would've to rework the whole code connected to it. This can reach from a small impact up to a deep one, like we did to make skill trees for generals possible.

The same happened during the development of MCC. We did rework several systems to be able to adjust and to create new content, such as de-buffs and zone effects on adventures.

The key to solve this, is to find a way to reach the defined goal without ending up in a "feature creep", because you have to rework several different system at once.


Have fun
BB_Alex

[LosAngel]

BB I know you will beat this challenge!

BTW: some players posted long feedback with new features for UI.
Are you going to implement something mentioned in this thread?

[SmurfAsH]

What's the point that the Star Menu has a (search) execute-button when the text input field is filtering on-the-fly?
A clear field-button there instead would be useful.

[SmurfAsH]

And this is the exact challenge!

To be able to achieve the required goals to make PvP or even the Guilds more connected to the game, it does require an almost complete rework of the core mechanics related t those feature.

Internally I refer to this as the "lagacy code". The Code is set into stone right now, sometimes it is even "hard coded", which means you, as a designer have no influence on how it works or how it is balanced. To be able to have some sort of influence on it, you would've to rework the whole code connected to it. This can reach from a small impact up to a deep one, like we did to make skill trees for generals possible.

The same happened during the development of MCC. We did rework several systems to be able to adjust and to create new content, such as de-buffs and zone effects on adventures.

The key to solve this, is to find a way to reach the defined goal without ending up in a "feature creep", because you have to rework several different system at once.

What about heavily (re-)used systems that may work well on server side but cause major problems on client side?
Systems you have spent a lot of time and effort to make fail-safe but still need tweaking to reduce obvious bugs..
I'm thinking mostly of the "hard coded" (con-/de-)struction mechanism that you think can be executed from both sides (server and client) with just some map/building blocking restrictions and just letting server override or freeze/lag client whenever it gets heavy loaded.
Then you've added "help systems" that automatically emptying and retrench any excessing generals.
The whole Landing Field/Spot concept is a backward and non-wanted system that you for unknown reasons keep hanging on to.
Why not just keep it simple and avoiding such auto/manual executing conflicts?

There just needs to be a beach head (per player) from which we transfer generals to set up garrison; and a UI that allow us to handle army leading generals without garrison - could be reached from the Tavern (on home island) and a big ship or The Excelsior (on adventure).

[BB_Alex]

What about heavily (re-)used systems that may work well on server side but cause major problems on client side?
Systems you have spent a lot of time and effort to make fail-safe but still need tweaking to reduce obvious bugs..
I'm thinking mostly of the "hard coded" (con-/de-)struction mechanism that you think can be executed from both sides (server and client) with just some map/building blocking restrictions and just letting server override or freeze/lag client whenever it gets heavy loaded.
Then you've added "help systems" that automatically emptying and retrench any excessing generals.
The whole Landing Field/Spot concept is a backward and non-wanted system that you for unknown reasons keep hanging on to.
Why not just keep it simple and avoiding such auto/manual executing conflicts?

There just needs to be a beach head (per player) from which we transfer generals to set up garrison; and a UI that allow us to handle army leading generals without garrison - could be reached from the Tavern (on home island) and a big ship or The Excelsior (on adventure).

The statement remains the same in this case, too. To be able to make a better system, there is a need to rework the old ones.

Edit: Besides that, there is one rule: Don't trust the client! Would the reason "tons of work, so we decided to invest the resources into events and content" be enough reason to keep sticking to the existing mechanic?

[Jaroood]

Directly answering to the specific points:

- Menu size: I really like the bigger Windows, makes it easier to gain an overview

- Production text input: For me it makes no difference cause im used to the bars, but others may appreciate it

- Automatic max amount of units: Great and useful, cause under most circumstances we use the max amounts

- Select filters: Also, very useful to save lot of clicks if you search for specific stuff e.g. event ressources

- Buff updates: Works very smoothely

- zero quantity: don't see the benefit for that

- Buff panel for zero quantity: Nice

- Combat preview: no oppinion cause I never use that

- Menu scrolling: I really like this and hope it comes to live servers soon, along with the bigger menu sizes

- ENTER/ESC: Nice but barely used from my side yet, maybe after time

- Remember Buff amounts & Trade window text focus: There are rare occasions for that but it's a nice to have

[SmurfAsH]

The statement remains the same in this case, too. To be able to make a better system, there is a need to rework the old ones.

Edit: Besides that, there is one rule: Don't trust the client!

Ok sure, but it does not really help your customers - anyone who has been in contact with your support team may agree here.

Would the reason "tons of work, so we decided to invest the resources into events and content" be enough reason to keep sticking to the existing mechanic?

Depends on how you valuate "customers sticking to the game" - and by "customers" I mean those who had actually bought gems.
Having acquired everything useful in this game will (when using) trigger some mechanics more often and making lag issues appear on a minutely basis.
Of course hardcore players are good in adapting - I've dropped interest in some aspects of this game just to keep it enjoyable to play - but everyone has a limit and for many it's been exceeded.

[LosAngel]

Are you going to enlarge the battle window? The window where are you sending generals.

[BB_Alex]

Are you going to enlarge the battle window? The window where are you sending generals.

Maybe. I don't now. Right now there are no short term plans to do so.