42 replies to this topic

[Troutmonkey]

Dear PGI.

When UI 2.0 was being developed you asked for feedback on ways to improve it. We provided it, and you completely ignored it. The UI was an unfinished mess and I quit MWO for 2 months, and then avoided the mechlab for months after that.

Now the new Mechlab UI is coming out, and while it has some improvements, it is still far FAR from finished. The test server feedback offered dozens of extremely good suggestions, which appeared have been take seriously given that PGI Alexander was collating them.

Now I've heard that the new UI is to be released tomorrow, and it appears to have ignored pretty much all of the suggestions. The layout is below par, and scales extremely poorly at higher resolutions, the weapons aren't list in size order (LRM10, LRM 15, LRM 20, LRM5??), and the select mech screen is still tiny and much more cumbersome to use than the old mech grid selection. There are many other design flaws and time needs to be taken to make sure it is up to scratch.

Why is this UI being rushed forward in such an unfinished state? Will the feedback and suggestions ever be implemented? How long will we have to wait before it's updated (re fixed), or will we be stuck with this for over a year like we had to with UI 2.0? The select mech screen is extremely frustrating to use and will likely cause me to stop playing for the time being.

Here are just two of the excellent suggestions put forward by the community:
http://mwomercs.com/...eenshot-mockup/ (Option C)
http://mwomercs.com/...ridlist-mockup/

TLDR:
The new UI is unfinished and should not be released, and I'm not happy about it.

Edited by Troutmonkey, 01 June 2015 - 09:45 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

I agree it can be improved but the ammo and items owned filter buttons will save me SOOOOOO much time. I can forgive a lot because of these.

Just by the video it looks like its going to be better than we have now and worth using. They can patch it some more over the next few month like they did with ui2.0

Edited by Monkey Lover, 01 June 2015 - 09:28 PM.

[orcrist86]

Troutmonkey, on 01 June 2015 - 09:17 PM, said:

Dear PGI.

When UI 2.0 was being developed you asked for feedback on ways to improve it. We provided it, and you completely ignored it. The UI was an unfinished mess and I quit MWO for 2 months, and then avoided the mechlab for months after that.

Now the new Mechlab UI is coming out, and while it has some improvements, it is still far FAR from finished. The test server feedback offered dozens of extremely good suggestions, which appeared have been take seriously given that PGI Alexander was collating them.

Now I've heard that the new UI is to be released tomorrow, and it appears to have ignored pretty much all of the suggestions. The layout is below par, and scales extremely poorly at higher resolutions, the weapons aren't list in size order (LRM10, LRM 15, LRM 20, LRM5??), and the select mech screen is still tiny and much more cumbersome to use than the old mech grid selection.

Why is this UI being rushed forward in such an unfinished state? Will the feedback and suggestions ever be implemented? How long will we have to wait before it's updated (re fixed), or will we be stuck with this for over a year like we had to with UI 2.0? The select mech screen is extremely frustrating to use and will likely cause me to stop playing for the time being.

Here are just two of the excellent suggestions put forward by the community:
http://mwomercs.com/...eenshot-mockup/ (Option C)
http://mwomercs.com/...ridlist-mockup/

TLDR:
The new UI is unfinished and should not be released, and I'm not happy about it.

The LRMS are in numerical sorting order based on the the value from left to right:
10
15
20
5

Excel spreadsheets and many programming languages do this. To fix it the displayed value would need a hidden second value in the database, something like LRM 05.

Russ has already said that better scaling was being worked on and that several other front end UI items were in progress... but you would have to look for more information than patch notes.

But if it makes your rage ***** feel better keep your anger going.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Tina Benoit said:

As promised, we are still going to provide a rundown on the feedback we received during the MechLab PTS, to let you know what we've already integrated and what might be integrated in the future.

http://mwomercs.com/...32#entry4468532

I thought it would be assumed that the first release of anything is always going to be incomplete...
It's not even out yet and we're saying PGI hasn't listened? AT ALL? REALLY? So the smurfy layout wasn't because everyone has been asking for it? Huh.

When it comes out, we'll continue to give feedback, and it will continue to improve. That should be a given.
Like Monkey Lover said, in it's first iteration, it's already 10 fold better than what we have right now. I'm not saying that we can't offer more feedback, but I'm not complaining with what we're getting.

I think points go further when we don't make stuff up to falsely inflate the issue...

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 01 June 2015 - 09:37 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

orcrist86, on 01 June 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

The LRMS are in numerical sorting order based on the the value from left to right:
10
15
20
5

Excel spreadsheets and many programming languages do this. To fix it the displayed value would need a hidden second value in the database, something like LRM 05.

I am well aware of this. It shows that PGI are using a default alpha-sort and have been too lazy to correct the issue by applying manual sort values to their items, something that would be extremely easy to do

[Troutmonkey]

orcrist86, on 01 June 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

But if it makes your rage ***** feel better keep your anger going.

I absolutely HATE poor UI design. It's the users primary method of interacting with a product, and in this case it amounts to about 50% of your experience in the game. Using a program should be an easy and enjoyable experience. I shouldn't have to be frustrated weird menu behaviour, tiny fonts, 3km's worth of mouse travel, 100 click sub-menus and 5 second delays on hover overs.

PGI somewhat acknowledged that it could be improved and asked for feedback, which we did and which they promptly ignored. There are zero excuses for 99% of their UI failures. PGI need to pony up the cash and hire a UI designer already, because Programmers and Artists are really **** at it.

Monkey Lover, on 01 June 2015 - 09:27 PM, said:

I agree it can be improved but the ammo and items owned filter buttons will save me SOOOOOO much time. I can forgive a lot because of these.

Just by the video it looks like its going to be better than we have now and worth using. They can patch it some more over the next few month like they did with ui2.0

UI 2.0 was updated exactly twice. Once for a non-functional summary view, and once to fix some animation bugs and remove 2 useless dialog prompts. I can't wait to wait another year for them to slightly change the font size and maybe the icon colours.

[Alistair Winter]

Like I said in another thread, I share your disappointment, but at this point I'm just dying for some new content, to be honest. It would be nice to have the Mechlab that this game deserves, but ultimately I yearn more for 4v4, Solaris and PVE. And it seems like working on the Mechlab has zapped a lot of resources from everything else.

[Monkey Lover]

Troutmonkey, on 01 June 2015 - 09:40 PM, said:

I absolutely HATE poor UI design. It's the users primary method of interacting with a product, and in this case it amounts to about 50% of your experience in the game. Using a program should be an easy and enjoyable experience. I shouldn't have to be frustrated weird menu behaviour, tiny fonts, 3km's worth of mouse travel, 100 click sub-menus and 5 second delays on hover overs.

PGI somewhat acknowledged that it could be improved and asked for feedback, which we did and which they promptly ignored. There are zero excuses for 99% of their UI failures. PGI need to pony up the cash and hire a UI designer already, because Programmers and Artists are really **** at it.

I wonder how much of the ui design is how they want it. I know they dont want finding and swaping modules to be easy. They want you to buy them.

Some of the stuff should be fixed i agree. Even now i shouldn't have to hit close, hit "yes i want to close" then hit exit again on another screen to close the game.

Russ said they did have a problem with making this ui because of the tiny resolution monitors they're supporting.

Some of the listings might be coming up wrong because of the server side database. So it might be both a server and ui issue.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 01 June 2015 - 10:00 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

orcrist86, on 01 June 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

The LRMS are in numerical sorting order based on the the value from left to right:
10
15
20
5

Excel spreadsheets and many programming languages do this. To fix it the displayed value would need a hidden second value in the database, something like LRM 05.

they could easily use numerical comparing

[Troutmonkey]

MoonUnitBeta, on 01 June 2015 - 09:35 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...32#entry4468532

I thought it would be assumed that the first release of anything is always going to be incomplete...
It's not even out yet and we're saying PGI hasn't listened? AT ALL? REALLY? So the smurfy layout wasn't because everyone has been asking for it? Huh.

When it comes out, we'll continue to give feedback, and it will continue to improve. That should be a given.
Like Monkey Lover said, in it's first iteration, it's already 10 fold better than what we have right now. I'm not saying that we can't offer more feedback, but I'm not complaining with what we're getting.

I think points go further when we don't make stuff up to falsely inflate the issue...

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but given past experience UI updates are few and far between. Now that they're pushing this unfinished mess on us (again) I'll most likely have to tolerate it (or quit) for months before any of the major issues with it are addressed

bad arcade kitty, on 01 June 2015 - 09:51 PM, said:

they could easily use numerical comparing

They really should just sort by weight really, the lasers would be in some sort of meaningful order as well

[MoonUnitBeta]

Troutmonkey, on 01 June 2015 - 09:52 PM, said:

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but given past experience UI updates are few and far between. Now that they're pushing this unfinished mess on us (again) I'll most likely have to tolerate it (or quit) for months before any of the major issues with it are addressed

We don't have any other choice. It's in a functional state. Not a polished one, however.
I don't think having lrm's not being sorted numerically is classified as a major issue...
It's missing a few quality of life features that make things easier, but it's working. I think one of the critical issues was not having this UI...

Rather than just giving up and quitting, why not help the cause and create feedback threads, offer suggestions, help improve what you want improved, rather than just leaving and expecting them to just know what is wrong? For example, Sabujo made great suggestions and put a lot of time into them. I think it's something PGI will continue to work towards to get right. They understand our expectations with this.

PGI was under a publishers hand when UI2.0 came out, and PGI made UI2.0 with extra resources and on their own time (as per Russ(?)). With the publisher out of the way, I'm sure PGI will support updates and integrate feedback at a steadier pace, instead of being denied whenever they want to deviate from a publisher's cash grab.

[Lindonius]

MoonUnitBeta, on 01 June 2015 - 10:06 PM, said:

Rather than just giving up and quitting, why not help the cause and create feedback threads, offer suggestions, help improve what you want improved?

Yeah you could even write them some suggestions in the official UI 2.0 feedback thread.......

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3334384

Oh no. Wait. You can't because they locked down that thread OVER A YEAR AGO.

They made it perfectly clear when they locked that thread that they've received all the feedback that they'd care to listen to regarding their train wreck of a UI.

No more feedback required. It's done.

100% Spot. On. Perfect.

Edited by Lindonius, 01 June 2015 - 10:34 PM.

[meteorol]

Even with its flaws, it looks like it will be 1000 times better than the current mess we have.

[Kushko]

The new mech selection is a serious step back from the current one. More clicks required for no apparent reason. They should really just keep the current mech selection and instead of complicating it and making it annoying they should add more filters to it.

And the color coding of weapon types is off, it should be green for missiles, yellow for ballistics and red for energy.

[Mad Strike]

mehh ..... i've just saw the new mechlab preview have seen the funcionality will save me 3 or 4 clicks at most and of course.....time which is very important. Not the best aesthetics but definetly brings important things without the need to make like 3 clicks into diferent butons. The most i loved from it is that i can finally see what modules my mechs have.......tottally hated to check every one of my 75 mechs just to look for one module....NO ANYMORE WOHOOOO!!!!!

Forgot to say about the options which definetly will allow me to customize what info i want to see each time i go into the lab.

So personally +1 to this new Mechlab.

Maybe this is just me who likes play with smurfy on my smartphone when boring or burn some time but still we are talking about a mechLAB.....LAB!!!....not some street fighter / tekken character selection screen....the idea is to have all information avaible about your mechs.

Edited by strikebrch, 01 June 2015 - 11:08 PM.

[VXJaeger]

I'll be damned, I thought it will be released this evenings patch but here it is already been whined on.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Lindonius, on 01 June 2015 - 10:27 PM, said:

Yeah you could even write them some suggestions in the official UI 2.0 feedback thread.......

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3334384

Oh no. Wait. You can't because they locked down that thread OVER A YEAR AGO.

They made it perfectly clear when they locked that thread that they've received all the feedback that they'd care to listen to regarding their train wreck of a UI.

No more feedback required. It's done.

100% Spot. On. Perfect.

[STEF_]

The new mechlab needs to improve, but I'm not disappointed with its release at all.

Too much tired to waste time and clicks.

[Troutmonkey]

Kushko, on 01 June 2015 - 10:50 PM, said:

The new mech selection is a serious step back from the current one. More clicks required for no apparent reason. They should really just keep the current mech selection and instead of complicating it and making it annoying they should add more filters to it.

And the color coding of weapon types is off, it should be green for missiles, yellow for ballistics and red for energy.

This is by far my biggest gripe with the new system.

During the entire length of UI 2.0, I never once visited the Store or Select Mech screens as these menu's were cumbersome in the extreme compared to the grid layout. They were also missing vital information and mech previews that were present in the other view. Now I'm being told that they are going to be the only way to access mechs, and that is something that I will have to deal with nearly every single game. I avoided modifying my mechs under UI 2.0, and now I'm going to have to avoid switching mechs. What an absolute pain

MoonUnitBeta, on 01 June 2015 - 10:06 PM, said:

Rather than just giving up and quitting, why not help the cause and create feedback threads, offer suggestions, help improve what you want improved, rather than just leaving and expecting them to just know what is wrong? For example, Sabujo made great suggestions and put a lot of time into them. I think it's something PGI will continue to work towards to get right. They understand our expectations with this.

PGI was under a publishers hand when UI2.0 came out, and PGI made UI2.0 with extra resources and on their own time (as per Russ(?)). With the publisher out of the way, I'm sure PGI will support updates and integrate feedback at a steadier pace, instead of being denied whenever they want to deviate from a publisher's cash grab.

We already did this, that was the whole point of the test server. I also have an extensive list of bug reports that only recently PGI have started to act on. I want to be optimistic but every time I am PGI let me down immediately.

[Paigan]

orcrist86, on 01 June 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

The LRMS are in numerical sorting order based on the the value from left to right:
10
15
20
5

Excel spreadsheets and many programming languages do this. To fix it the displayed value would need a hidden second value in the database, something like LRM 05.
[...]

As a software developer, I feel compelled to correct this.
1.) Programming languages don't do sorting. They provide the means to create logic (e.g. sorting logic). But which logic (e.g. sorting) is implemented / used is completely up to the person writing the code.
2.) No hidden secondary value would be needed, but a smarter sorting comparison. E.g. the LRM Weapon type could have sorting logic that compares the already existing launcher size numerically (5, 10, 15, 20) instead of just the name alphabetically.
(It's a little more complicated as one comparator logic would have to handle all weapon types, but that's the basic idea).

In modern languages with properly educated software engineers, this takes minutes to implement.
I don't know how long script-kiddies in some prehistorical C or SQL language or in some game engine script need for that. Maybe days or weeks, hence it got ignored. Just an asumption.

Edited by Paigan, 02 June 2015 - 12:33 AM.