Moderator: Community Team
dividedbyzero wrote:That's better than the new layout. I never realized there was a problem with the old way...but this would be a good compromise between old and new.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
by Optimus Prime » Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:59 pm
No, it isn't better than the current layout. The eventual goal is to get rid of putting so much information on the side to eventually allow for larger map sizes. Putting everything back on the side does nothing but defeat that purpose.
I concur.
But no need for the abbrevations "S" "R" "T" "TD" - They could be spelled out I think, if you put the stats to the side - you have good enough resolution to deal with it.
Optimus Prime wrote:No, it isn't better than the current layout. The eventual goal is to get rid of putting so much information on the side to eventually allow for larger map sizes. Putting everything back on the side does nothing but defeat that purpose.
dividedbyzero wrote:Optimus Prime wrote:No, it isn't better than the current layout. The eventual goal is to get rid of putting so much information on the side to eventually allow for larger map sizes. Putting everything back on the side does nothing but defeat that purpose.
So, what was wrong with it being below the map ? If the goal is larger maps, I still want to see the colors of my cards, whether or I own any of the lands, and the game settings while I'm taking my turn or preparing to...I did less scrolling before.
Look, I've never complained about the site prior to this. I've been here since 2006 and definitely consider myself one of the veterans and power users of the site. No, I don't have JR's sheer number of games, but I play a lot..I've purchased membership for 3 years and purchased at least 4 other memberships for others. I support the site. I just wish changes like this weren't so arbitrary. Another player has started a thread in Suggs/Bugs to discuss disclosing changes that are coming so there can be some feedback before things are put into place, scripts break, etc. It seems to me that this is a good idea and that the site would want user feedback before changing things.
Adding optional things isn't a huge deal. I can choose or not choose to play nuclear spoils. I can't choose to reset my game layout so it is more conducive to practical game play. Maybe having a beta interface in the same way we have beta maps - it can utilize the same databases and just have the new front end code base ?
This is not just a matter of resisting change. This is a big deal in changing game play for those of us that tend to have a lot of games running at once.
Optimus Prime wrote:In regards to making everything optional, some things are easy to make optional, and in those cases sometimes lackattack is willing to do so, but sometimes the things that everyone things should just be made optional are not easy to make that way from a coding standpoint and it takes a cost/benefit decision to determine if it is worth the time to make it so.
the.killing.44 wrote:Optimus Prime wrote:In regards to making everything optional, some things are easy to make optional, and in those cases sometimes lackattack is willing to do so, but sometimes the things that everyone things should just be made optional are not easy to make that way from a coding standpoint and it takes a cost/benefit decision to determine if it is worth the time to make it so.
If he can make a table go from under the map to next to the play order, which means moving everything up pixels and dropping an entire column of names and ranks, I think he can make a row of game information go from above the map to below.
I'd feel horrible if that happens and would rather say "thanks for the effort, but it looks like it needs some tweaking, how can I help, or how can I get the community to let you know what you need to adjust to make it perfect."
Optimus Prime wrote:the.killing.44 wrote:Optimus Prime wrote:In regards to making everything optional, some things are easy to make optional, and in those cases sometimes lackattack is willing to do so, but sometimes the things that everyone things should just be made optional are not easy to make that way from a coding standpoint and it takes a cost/benefit decision to determine if it is worth the time to make it so.
If he can make a table go from under the map to next to the play order, which means moving everything up pixels and dropping an entire column of names and ranks, I think he can make a row of game information go from above the map to below.
Yes, he most certainly could, but do you personally have any clue as to how long it takes him to code that option? If you do, then awesome, but if you don't, be careful about making demands about it. That's my point.
Optimus Prime wrote:Many people make the argument that user testing and user discussion would help avoid these problems, but look at it practically, those don't solve any real problems, except make everything take longer, and the same people who complain about the changes are the same individuals who harp on lackattack over and over about how long things take. Do you really think he wants to give those people more reason to complain? I doubt it, and if you are honest with yourself, you would likely come to the same conclusion. It's sort of a "damned if we do, damned if we don't situation" and you can't tell me it isn't if you look at things honestly. No matter what gets changed, 80% of the comments are negative. Even if we made a groundbreaking change that could be proven to be of benefit to everyone, almost everything we hear back is going to be "what a horrible decisions, change it back!" So I'd be interested in your thoughts on that sometime if you feel inclined to send me a PM, I'd love to hear a counter argument to such a thing.
So many people think that these things are arbitrary decisions, but they aren't, even if nobody ever takes our word for it, they are not arbitrary decisions.
Optimus Prime wrote:With all due respect, being a long time user does not qualify any of us to make demands on how lackattack decides to change the website. Neither does buying multiple memberships.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
alstergren wrote:Optimus Prime wrote:With all due respect, being a long time user does not qualify any of us to make demands on how lackattack decides to change the website. Neither does buying multiple memberships.
1. The customer is always right. It's capitalism baby.
Dako wrote:alstergren wrote:Optimus Prime wrote:With all due respect, being a long time user does not qualify any of us to make demands on how lackattack decides to change the website. Neither does buying multiple memberships.
1. The customer is always right. It's capitalism baby.
Only works when you are paying for something made by your own design and architecture. If you are just buying a product in the store - you are buying the default design as well. You might be right, but it is not your only voice that makes the decision. Remember, that is entirely lack's project and he is the only one who will make changes here. And yeah, we need to stick with this site and try to help to make it better, but just saying "this sucks, change" not going to help anyone but will just irritate admins and other users.
You are not customers here, you are end users. And lack is the product owner - so he creates what needs to be done and when. You just use it and feedback it, hoping that he can change it later.
Gengoldy wrote:Of all the games I've played, and there have been some poor sports and cursing players out there, you are by far the lowest and with the least class.
alstergren wrote:Dako wrote:alstergren wrote:Optimus Prime wrote:With all due respect, being a long time user does not qualify any of us to make demands on how lackattack decides to change the website. Neither does buying multiple memberships.
1. The customer is always right. It's capitalism baby.
Only works when you are paying for something made by your own design and architecture. If you are just buying a product in the store - you are buying the default design as well. You might be right, but it is not your only voice that makes the decision. Remember, that is entirely lack's project and he is the only one who will make changes here. And yeah, we need to stick with this site and try to help to make it better, but just saying "this sucks, change" not going to help anyone but will just irritate admins and other users.
You are not customers here, you are end users. And lack is the product owner - so he creates what needs to be done and when. You just use it and feedback it, hoping that he can change it later.
Wow... Well, dunno what kind of capitalism you got in Russia. But outside Putin-governed territories, a customer is someone who pays for goods or services (someone who makes something by his own design is a producer). CC is a service. And the customer is always right is an expression that goes to the heart of capitalism. You would have understood if you had lived in the free world.
by Falkomagno » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:14 pm
I would say option 2 but with some fix in the way that the links refresh maps and that are presented, since it seems a bit overwhelmed in that corner
qwert wrote:by Falkomagno » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:14 pm
I would say option 2 but with some fix in the way that the links refresh maps and that are presented, since it seems a bit overwhelmed in that corner
need more explane,because i dont understand quite,what you mean.
He's saying that area (bottom right) is overcrowded. I like #2, too.
Return to Archived Suggestions
Users browsing this forum: No registered users