Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[King Mir]

Like put constructions and digging designations in the same menu.

As it is one of the things new players have to grasp is the difference between designations, constructions and buildings, especially given some of the overlap (carve out a stair vs. construct a stair in carved-out space); I don't think putting the potentially confusable subjects into the same menu would help that situation.

That's not to say the UI couldn't be made more intuitive, but just to say that it is organized, just more by the game's distinctions that you have to learn than by the natural sense of "hey, where's the menu for building a house? What do you mean that each step has a different menu?"

Yeah and that's a bad way to organize things. Yes new players need to grasp the difference between constructions and designation, but that can be achieves by having both in the same menu, such that new players see both and learn the difference. Also, the method for designating both of those should be more simmilar.

If the game had a better UI and better graphics the community would grow massively.  The larger the community the more donors.

It's not a something vs. nothing tradeoff, it's a something vs. something tradeoff: it's not "game as it is now vs. game as it is now plus UI/graphics", it's "game as it will be in so many years vs. game as it is now plus UI/graphics". Imagine, for instance, if Toady had started work on graphics about a year ago -- there would be no minecarts. Consequently, you can't just say as a granted that better UI/graphics would increase the community, because the question is whether it would increase more with better UI/graphics or with more features (and bugfixes). You could, of course, weigh those things and come down with an opinion on the same side anyway, but it would be much more reasonable than just saying "graphics is better than no graphics" without considering what "no graphics" is developing.

That's true, but any given feature has a particular benefit and influence on the game, and a particular cost in development time. And I would say that UI features tend to have a proportionally large benefit.

[Cobbler89]

Like put constructions and digging designations in the same menu.

As it is one of the things new players have to grasp is the difference between designations, constructions and buildings, especially given some of the overlap (carve out a stair vs. construct a stair in carved-out space); I don't think putting the potentially confusable subjects into the same menu would help that situation.

That's not to say the UI couldn't be made more intuitive, but just to say that it is organized, just more by the game's distinctions that you have to learn than by the natural sense of "hey, where's the menu for building a house? What do you mean that each step has a different menu?"

Yeah and that's a bad way to organize things. Yes new players need to grasp the difference between constructions and designation, but that can be achieves by having both in the same menu, such that new players see both and learn the difference. Also, the method for designating both of those should be more simmilar.

There's a risk here of engaging in a non-argument: I say they should be separated because players must learn the difference, you say they should be put together because players must learn the difference. The only way to resolve that kind of matter is to back up and get into the details of why we would make two blatantly contradictory claims... Well, for my part I would actually clarify that I don't think they necessarily have to be in separate menus to help learn the difference, only that they need to be clearly distinguished; I'd go further then and say that unless the difference itself is made more self-explanatory in-game it will remain more difficult than it should be... Personally the only thing I can think would make it more obvious is a more obvious name for designations, perhaps something like "terrain" (since pretty much all designations affect terrain except the one to unconstruct constructions)? Did you have anything in particular in mind to help distinguish them in the same menu, or just that the player will look more at "what do these individual actions do", which is easier to figure out, if they are not distracted by "what do these separate menus do"?

[King Mir]

It's just that if you want to build tracks, for example, you shouldn't have to use completely different menus to make them on stone as on dirt. I imagine either a sub-menu or toggle for both kinds of tracks. Or just make it automatically select the right one based on the target tile.

That's not an "easy to learn" argument, so much as an "easy to use".

[HaibaneTenshi]

A great dispute here... But i didn't find (may be missed somewhere, but) the hardest argument: why do players need to use side programs (Therapist, Quickfort, others) just for normal play?.. For me (as well as must for you too!) it's enough to say: there is something wrong with this game.

[Jheral]

I think the issue there is that "it works for now, so Toady can work on more pressing concerns while we can still play the game in a reasonable way".

That said, I agree - you shouldn't have to use third-party software. But with only one person developing the game...

[Manveru Taurënér]

A great dispute here... But i didn't find (may be missed somewhere, but) the hardest argument: why do players need to use side programs (Therapist, Quickfort, others) just for normal play?.. For me (as well as must for you too!) it's enough to say: there is something wrong with this game.

Please don't claim to speak for everyone when that is simply not the case. I play perfectly fine without any external programs, and know a great deal of others do too. Sure I've used Legendviewer to get an easier view of the lay of the world and it's history, but it doesn't really make much of a difference in terms of gameplay. Never tried Therapist as I've simply not seen the point, no idea what Quickfort does and can't say I know much of any other available utilities. Oh, apart from DFhack, but that I only use for cosmetic purposes so I don't have to restart every time I make a slight digging error (I'm a bit OCD when it comes to symmetry), but still, far from something that is a must have to play ^^

Edit: Might as well clarify before someone gets the wrong idea, this doesn't mean I don't agree the ui could use some tweaks here and there, but I certainly don't understand the claim that it's in any way unuseable

[HaibaneTenshi]

Mostly, what's going here is a matter of taste. What if DF would have console without? I'm sure, there would people who said: "Only console is the right way! All is pretty clear and easy. We don't actually need anything more."
As for me, I just don't like to do (mechanic) work which can be better, easier and faster done by game itself or by some other way. Forming statistics, easy management, mouse compatibility, other nice, but not necessary things - all it allows me to concentrate on economics, building, mining and not to waste time. That's why I'm so actively using other programs.

[King Mir]

More mouse support would be nice. But even for the keyboard, the menus need a good deal of improvement.

[arkhometha]

Guys, let's stop beating a dead horse here, please? All the arguments have been laid in previous threads and some of these are even pointed in the beginning of the thread. OP had his question answered and Toady follows the development schedule he wants: the game is in alpha, it is incomplete, people prioritize different things, more people playing doesn't necessarily mean more donors and Toady doesn't care if he attracts more people or not. This is not meant to sell well and attract a lot of people, it's meant to be Toady's vision and it should mean he is free to code what he likes to do first. He doesn't like being forced or feel pressured to work on things he doesn't want.

[blazzano]

It seems to me that there is no better place to beat dead horses than in the Suggestions board.  If Toady (or anyone else) doesn't like what people say in the UI threads, he can ignore them.

A lot of people respond to complaints about UI with "time spent on UI takes away from time spent elsewhere," or "why change UI when it will just have to be changed again at some point?"  The best counterarguments to these come from this forum's own NW_Kohaku, who I consider the official spokesperson for UI lobbying. 

See here, here,  and especially here.

The gist of what Kohaku says - and which I agree with - is that ignoring the UI issues creates problems not just for the game players, but even for Toady himself (e.g. bug detection), and that there are certain fixes that could be done now that shouldn't be massively labor intensive.

The bug detection bit is interesting.  Kohaku mentions the eyelash bug in the posts, but there's been a newly discovered bug that seems to prevent some fortress-born creatures and dwarves from growing up.  This is a vastly more important bug, and it arguably would have been easier to detect if the game was better at presenting information.  As with the eyelash bug, it was only narrowed down with the help of 3rd party memory hacks.

(edited to fix typos)

[arkhometha]

It seems to me that there is no better place to beat dead horses than in the Suggestions board.  If Toady (or anyone else) doesn't like what people say in the UI threads, he can ignore them.

Yet this a suggestion board, not a place to beat a dead horse. Nyan Thousand answered the OP and JanusTwoface proided additional info, that's should have done. Repeated question/suggestion answered, and it's done. No need to flame, no need to bring the discussion back up.

The Thread title "UI still horrible ? off for another year" and the fact people are still beating the dead horse when all has been answered and discussed, and Toady gave his final word on the subject, is just to show some people are trying to put pressure on Toady to prioritize what they want. And that's just what Toady doesn't want and I imagine a lot of users also don't want that. Toady acknowledged the problem and said he will work on it in the future.

[King Mir]

Guys, let's stop beating a dead horse here, please? All the arguments have been laid in previous threads and some of these are even pointed in the beginning of the thread. OP had his question answered and Toady follows the development schedule he wants: the game is in alpha, it is incomplete, people prioritize different things, more people playing doesn't necessarily mean more donors and Toady doesn't care if he attracts more people or not. This is not meant to sell well and attract a lot of people, it's meant to be Toady's vision and it should mean he is free to code what he likes to do first. He doesn't like being forced or feel pressured to work on things he doesn't want.

No harm in talking about it; if you don't want to, don't post in this thread. I've already given reasons why calling the game "alpha" is a poor excuse. No one's forcing Toady to do anything in this thread, where just talking about how important improving the UI is. Toady might read it, or he might not, no foul either way.

[arkhometha]

No harm in talking about it; if you don't want to, don't post in this thread. I've already given reasons why calling the game "alpha" is a poor excuse. No one's forcing Toady to do anything in this thread, where just talking about how important improving the UI is. Toady might read it, or he might not, no foul either way.

The game is in alpha. It is a fact. The game states that.

I know you guys are just talking about how important the UI is, and that's why I said it's beating a dead horse.  Because it has been said, and the same arguments have already been said. It's just repeating it. Maybe except for you claiming the game is not in alpha, that's new.

And yes, it is foul and it does harm. The purpose of repeating the same argument - without nothing new to it - despite already having an answer from the developer, the purpose of the OP creating a thread who doesn't do a suggestion but just complains he can't play the game without another UI is meant to put pressure on the developer to prioritize what some people want to see first. Toady clearly said he hates that and that's why it does harm.

Please, stop it.

[blazzano]

Yet this a suggestion board, not a place to beat a dead horse. Nyan Thousand answered the OP and JanusTwoface proided additional info, that's should have done. Repeated question/suggestion answered, and it's done. No need to flame, no need to bring the discussion back up.

As you stated earlier, this game is in alpha.  What is the purpose of a playable alpha?  There's a number of ways to answer that, but I think many would agree that one purpose is to get an impression of what works and what doesn't.  As it turns out, interface improvements help with gathering that impression.

What is the purpose of a Suggestions board for a playable alpha?  To collect that impression of what works, what doesn't, and where the user base feels improvements are most needed.

In my case, I don't feel the UI is the same thing as some random added mechanic or construction or concept.  The UI intersects with all of those things by definition: it's what we use to interact with those game mechanics, constructions, and everything else.  It's always worth having a fresh look at it, IMO, because as the game changes, it must necessarily change as well.

You said earlier that Toady "doesn't like being forced or feel pressured to work on things he doesn't want."  But then, why have a Suggestions board in the first place?  Undoubtedly there are some things he would rather be working on instead of the UI.  But the very existence of this board seems to indicate that he acknowledges the importance of having many eyes looking at the game, and how they can sometimes be better than a single pair of eyes at spotting oversights and problems.

It isn't as if every single thread is being overrun with complaints about the interface.  If they were, I could see your point.  As it is, the interface questions are constrained to a relatively small number of threads that are easily ignored.  If you're getting annoyed by the "dead horse" beating, why not be satisfied with that status?

Finally, as long as the conversation is civil - and it mostly has been in this thread - what is the harm in letting people continue to discuss?  If the forum staff disagrees, let them handle it, and apply the needed thread locks or user warnings.

[arkhometha]

What is the purpose of a Suggestions board for a playable alpha?

To collect suggestions. The rest that you said is just your opinion.

You said earlier that Toady "doesn't like being forced or feel pressured to work on things he doesn't want."  But then, why have a Suggestions board in the first place?

To make suggestions. And you know, the better UI suggestion already has a topic on this same board. And a item for voting in the Eternal Suggestion Voting. OP was pointed out to it. It is already suggested, discussed and properly answered. If you feel like there's something to add, feel free to join the proper suggestion thread and suggest.
The pressure doesn't come from a suggestion board existing, it comes from people beating a dead horse on duplicated threads, repeating the same arguments. Or from people randomly coming and making a duplicate thread, then some people joining it to beat the dead horse instead of just pointing the person who wants to do the discussion to the already existent thread on the subject.

It isn't as if every single thread is being overrun with complaints about the interface.  If they were, I could see your point.

First, because most people and most arguments are already said and the developer already answered. Second, because it doesn't make sense to go shouting "I want a new UI" in every thread, as your extrapolation clearly suggests. Not being discussed in every thread doesn't mean you are not trying to apply pressure nor that the subject isn't talked a lot. By the contrary, the topic is so over-talked that the first answers to the topic are pointing the OP out to the proper thread.

Finally, as long as the conversation is civil - and it mostly has been in this thread - what is the harm in letting people continue to discuss?  If the forum staff disagrees, let them handle it, and apply the needed thread locks or user warnings.

Toady and ThreeToe are the forum staff and they are too cool to close threads and hand warnings, so don't expect it to happen. Besides, beating a dead horses and making duplicate threads is not against the rules, it's just extremely bad manners.
The harm is done, as I said, in trying to apply pressure on the developer because you think some things are more important than others, by not discussing the thing in the proper thread. There's already a thread to discuss this, adding what you think to it is fine, but grabbing every thread about the subject to repeat the same arguments is the essence of the "try to apply pressure" and it's just bad manners.
Of course, it can happen of someone making a duplicate thread. That's fine, errors do happen. However one user already pointed out the correct thread (in the second post!) to discuss this issue, so good manners dictate you should go to that thread to discuss this. Preferentially, people should also read the thread to try and not repeat the same arguments again and again just for the sake of you thinking "X is more important than Y and should be done first".