Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Elo_J_Fudpucker

Signal Flag Menu - Suggestion

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

359
[WAG]
Members
1,395 posts
8,000 battles

I am sure I am not alone when I express frustration with the Signal Menu Interface... here is my suggestion...
*(edit - to be clear the white boxes are check boxes, pick up to the max allowed and click mount all)

SignalFlagMenu.thumb.jpg.15a79774f03b934a6ed955ddb7f824dd.jpg

 

Edited by Elo_J_Fudpucker
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155
[CSM]
[CSM]
Members
362 posts
3,804 battles
6 minutes ago, neptunes_wrath said:

txMlGaq.gif

The little white boxes are checked in stead of clicking and verifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[EQRN]
Members
432 posts
9,460 battles

Comes up every few months.  WG teases port ui upgrades being worked on, whether the signals window is included, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,540
[PVE]
Members
10,784 posts
7,940 battles
40 minutes ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

I am sure I am not alone when I express frustration with the Signal Menu Interface... here is my suggestion...

SignalFlagMenu.thumb.jpg.15a79774f03b934a6ed955ddb7f824dd.jpg

 

 

@Pigeon_of_War, @Gneisenau013, @turbo07, @TheURLGuy, @Femennenly we humbly beg your assistance in pushing this endeavor please.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[WAG]
Members
1,395 posts
8,000 battles

..and that is kinda the thing...

I (we?) have asked for these kind of changes and or fixes for a while... like the dump to port bug at the end of battles, and the compact carousel reverting to 2 rows when set to 4 ... I appreciate that they are implementing lots of new ships, reworking the CV's, playing with subs, running tons of promotions, etc etc... but it would be very nice to see some serious focus on some of these little changes that would make life in game more enjoyable.... I still make an argument that resources have to be allotted to projects, and I would wish for more of them to be given to interface issues... :D

gobble gobble

( and yeah. not getting roasted for this post!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,540
[PVE]
Members
10,784 posts
7,940 battles
12 minutes ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

..and that is kinda the thing...

I (we?) have asked for these kind of changes and or fixes for a while... like the dump to port bug at the end of battles, and the compact carousel reverting to 2 rows when set to 4 ... I appreciate that they are implementing lots of new ships, reworking the CV's, playing with subs, running tons of promotions, etc etc... but it would be very nice to see some serious focus on some of these little changes that would make life in game more enjoyable.... I still make an argument that resources have to be allotted to projects, and I would wish for more of them to be given to interface issues... :D

gobble gobble

( and yeah. not getting roasted for this post!)

Well, when it is an issue with only some of the player base, especially if that group is not large, then it becomes much harder to find the culprit. Especially when there are so many variations of PCs and software that finding a common theme among them can be hard. Especially if it is multiple issues coming together to cause this bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,405
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
16,231 posts
9,570 battles
2 hours ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

I am sure I am not alone when I express frustration with the Signal Menu Interface... here is my suggestion...
*(edit - to be clear the white boxes are check boxes, pick up to the max allowed and click mount all)

SignalFlagMenu.thumb.jpg.15a79774f03b934a6ed955ddb7f824dd.jpg

 

This has been asked for since the signal flags came into the game. Maybe they will take the hint finally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[WAG]
Members
1,395 posts
8,000 battles
18 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

This has been asked for since the signal flags came into the game. Maybe they will take the hint finally.

..so we will keep asking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,075
[WGA]
Developers, Administrator, Moderator, F&F, Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
1,097 posts
3,851 battles
On 11/22/2018 at 11:06 AM, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

I am sure I am not alone when I express frustration with the Signal Menu Interface... here is my suggestion...
*(edit - to be clear the white boxes are check boxes, pick up to the max allowed and click mount all)

SignalFlagMenu.thumb.jpg.15a79774f03b934a6ed955ddb7f824dd.jpg

 

I love it. I'll push it forward and see how far we can get.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
90
[DENY]
Members
249 posts
6,941 battles

This was suggested at the Anchor's Away event, but the reply is that it is not a priority at the moment, so there is no time frame.

BTW, "Mount All" would need to be changed to "Mount Checked", but otherwise very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,538
[-K-]
Members
5,454 posts
9,385 battles
23 minutes ago, Xanthro said:

This was suggested at the Anchor's Away event, but the reply is that it is not a priority at the moment, so there is no time frame.

Ok, really how hard would this be to implement?  The programming can't be that tough for check boxes.  

Heck, let the intern do it on his lunch break.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[WAG]
Members
1,395 posts
8,000 battles
2 hours ago, Xanthro said:

This was suggested at the Anchor's Away event, but the reply is that it is not a priority at the moment, so there is no time frame.

...and therein lies the rub..*they* do not see it as a priority.  To me it is, and it is a matter of assigning resources to tackle challenges. They seem to be able to assign plenty of resources to other areas, so it isn't that the ability is not there... it is that they are choosing to not devote resources to it. What we do see is a lot of new content, gaming modes, scenarios etc... and yes these are different programming teams, we have been told this and we get it, ok? ... the challenge back is that WG has control of the resources and could assign them to these issues should  they choose to do so... 
 

How many times... how many more times does the user base have to ask... 

and thanx for listening...  if anyone is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
90
[DENY]
Members
249 posts
6,941 battles
2 hours ago, Ace_04 said:

Ok, really how hard would this be to implement?  The programming can't be that tough for check boxes.  

Heck, let the intern do it on his lunch break.

As a person who has been in charge of the development and support of literally hundreds of applications, it's much harder than you are making it out.

1. While it may seem simple, Warships seems to have a fundamental flaw in the underlying architecture of updating ships. It's why people have issues selling items, and it takes so long to simply remove or add a signal. Seriously, go add one signal and watch it take over a second to actually register, and that's with a 35 ping. It's likely the entire database structure would have to be rewritten, or a completely different method of adding and removing signals created. For example, they could nest the transactions, so that if there is an error the transaction rollsback.

2. Testing and acceptance for a project this size, meaning WOWS, is always way more difficult than it need be. For gods sake, the World spent millions of hours in 1999 afraid of Y2K. People outside IT can be idiots, and not understand that what they are asking is stupid.

3. There are many potential checks that would have to be done, such as ensuring the person did not select more than 8 signals, that selected signals will work on that ship, for example, Juliet Whiskey on ships without torpedoes. Though people would be doing it too themselves, they would complain bitterly about misapplied signals.

4. Adding checkboxes would mean both the graphics team, and the programming team would have to get involved, which would mean both would be pulled out of other projects.

I'd LOVE it to be changed. If I were in charge, it would be a priority, and I'd have it so that users could select profiles, so that you have a set of flags for Ranked or Random and a click of the button changes them, WHEN you enter those types of matches, but it is much harder than you are making it out to be.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,540
[PVE]
Members
10,784 posts
7,940 battles
7 minutes ago, Xanthro said:

As a person who has been in charge of the development and support of literally hundreds of applications, it's much harder than you are making it out.

1. While it may seem simple, Warships seems to have a fundamental flaw in the underlying architecture of updating ships. It's why people have issues selling items, and it takes so long to simply remove or add a signal. Seriously, go add one signal and watch it take over a second to actually register, and that's with a 35 ping. It's likely the entire database structure would have to be rewritten, or a completely different method of adding and removing signals created. For example, they could nest the transactions, so that if there is an error the transaction rollsback.

2. Testing and acceptance for a project this size, meaning WOWS, is always way more difficult than it need be. For gods sake, the World spent millions of hours in 1999 afraid of Y2K. People outside IT can be idiots, and not understand that what they are asking is stupid.

3. There are many potential checks that would have to be done, such as ensuring the person did not select more than 8 signals, that selected signals will work on that ship, for example, Juliet Whiskey on ships without torpedoes. Though people would be doing it too themselves, they would complain bitterly about misapplied signals.

4. Adding checkboxes would mean both the graphics team, and the programming team would have to get involved, which would mean both would be pulled out of other projects.

I'd LOVE it to be changed. If I were in charge, it would be a priority, and I'd have it so that users could select profiles, so that you have a set of flags for Ranked or Random and a click of the button changes them, WHEN you enter those types of matches, but it is much harder than you are making it out to be.

Well said. :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[WAG]
Members
1,395 posts
8,000 battles
9 minutes ago, Xanthro said:

3. There are many potential checks that would have to be done, such as ensuring the person did not select more than 8 signals, th

I do understand, but it still needs to be done... and frankly, ,they already have code to check that no more than 8 are selected that works now...


Is it harder than adding subs? Or creating special ships for the Twi-light mode? Or adding snow?  I don;t mean to at all belittel or make light of what it would take , but there is a lot of programming going on and I assume it is all challenging, so saying it would be hard to do, isn't really an answer..... the answer *is* "it is not a priority" which = we just don't see the need to ..  mean while, millions of extra unneeded clicks...   when was the last time the user base got what it wanted?

anywho.. .this is likely whipping a dead horse. I do not have much hope that this will be implemented as they have made is quite clear... but.. I had to say something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[WAG]
Members
1,395 posts
8,000 battles
2 hours ago, French_DD_Hype said:

I personally think a lot of our UI issues will go away when they go live with the 64 bit client. 

..and if WG thinks this is the case, they could say so?

...doesn't 64 bit leave a lot of the older computers that WG supports out int he cold??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,540
[PVE]
Members
10,784 posts
7,940 battles
17 minutes ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

..and if WG thinks this is the case, they could say so?

...doesn't 64 bit leave a lot of the older computers that WG supports out int he cold??

In 2015 almost 93% of Windows PCs were 64 bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
90
[DENY]
Members
249 posts
6,941 battles
2 hours ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

I do understand, but it still needs to be done... and frankly, ,they already have code to check that no more than 8 are selected that works now...


Is it harder than adding subs? Or creating special ships for the Twi-light mode? Or adding snow?  I don;t mean to at all belittel or make light of what it would take , but there is a lot of programming going on and I assume it is all challenging, so saying it would be hard to do, isn't really an answer..... the answer *is* "it is not a priority" which = we just don't see the need to ..  mean while, millions of extra unneeded clicks...   when was the last time the user base got what it wanted?

anywho.. .this is likely whipping a dead horse. I do not have much hope that this will be implemented as they have made is quite clear... but.. I had to say something...

The signal number code check right now, is per signal. The code simply looks to see how many flags are ON the ship, and if it is 8, the command to place the signal is made invalid.

Having checkmarks means the code has to check, BEFORE applying the signals, and what to do with the signals that are already on the ship? They'd have to be counted as well.

Actually, it is likely harder than something like adding subs or new ships. These, except for the diving part which simply mimics LOS, do not change a fundamental aspect of the game. Plus, the people reskinning a ship or even creating a new ship, are not programmers who would be changing the Signals UI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,540
[PVE]
Members
10,784 posts
7,940 battles
15 minutes ago, Xanthro said:

The signal number code check right now, is per signal. The code simply looks to see how many flags are ON the ship, and if it is 8, the command to place the signal is made invalid.

Having checkmarks means the code has to check, BEFORE applying the signals, and what to do with the signals that are already on the ship? They'd have to be counted as well.

Actually, it is likely harder than something like adding subs or new ships. These, except for the diving part which simply mimics LOS, do not change a fundamental aspect of the game. Plus, the people reskinning a ship or even creating a new ship, are not programmers who would be changing the Signals UI.

Actually, that is not how it works. There are eight slots and when you mount the 9th flag, the first flag is replaced.

 

That is very true and something people seem to miss. There is an audio department and they would not do that coding. The art department that comes up with the camo schemes, graphics and the like, would not be doing that code. Heck, I'm sure there are different parts of the coding department and only some of them would work on the UI. This game has millions of lines of code I'm sure. It's not like typing in a BASIC program you got out of a book.

Edited by Kizarvexis
mispelled BASIC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,344
[WOLF3]
Members
6,821 posts
2,692 battles
7 hours ago, Pigeon_of_War said:

I love it. I'll push it forward and see how far we can get.

Are we to infer that you haven't heard this suggestion before?

Whatever the case, thank you for the help!!  It will be much appreciated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
83
[AR]
Members
323 posts
12,183 battles

While they are at it, PLEASE make it so that we earn 10x Zulu flags for First Blood as opposed to x1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×