#36423: "The new distress signal UX needs improvement"
Vad handlar denna rapport om?
Vad hände? Välj från alternativen nedan
Vad hände? Välj från alternativen nedan
Vänligen kontrollera om det redan finns en rapport om samma ämne
Om detta stämmer, RÖSTA på denna rapport. Rapporterna med flest röster har PRIORITET!
# | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
---|
Detaljerad beskrivning
• Var vänlig klipp och klistra in felmeddelandet du ser på skärmen, om något.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Varsågod och förklara vad du ville göra, vad du gjorde och vad som hände
• Vad har du för webbläsare?
Google Chrome v79
• Var vänlig kopiera/klistra in texten på engelska istället för ditt eget språk. Om du har en skärmdump av denna buggen (vilket är bra), så kan du använda Imgur.com för att ladda upp den och kopiera/klistra in länken här.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Är denna text tillgänglig i översättningssystemet? Om den är det, var det mer än 24 timmar sedan den översattes?
• Vad har du för webbläsare?
Google Chrome v79
• Vänligen förklara ditt förslag exakt och koncist så att det är så enkelt som möjligt att förstå vad du menar.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Vad har du för webbläsare?
Google Chrome v79
• Vad visades på skärmen när du blockerades (Blank skärm? Del av spelets användargränssnitt? Felmeddelande?)?
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Vad har du för webbläsare?
Google Chrome v79
• Vilken del av reglerna respekterades inte av BGA-adaptionen?
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Är regelbrottet synligt i återuppspelning? Om ja, vilket nummer är det på draget?
• Vad har du för webbläsare?
Google Chrome v79
• Vilken spelhandling ville du göra?
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Vad försöker du göra för att sätta igång denna spelmekaniken?
• Vad hände när du försökte göra det här (felmeddelande, meddelande i spelstatusrad, ...)?
• Vad har du för webbläsare?
Google Chrome v79
• På vilket steg i spelet kom felet (vad var den aktuella instruktionen från spelet)?
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Vad hände när du försökte utföra en spelhandling (felmeddelande, meddelande i spelstatusrad, ...)?
• Vad har du för webbläsare?
Google Chrome v79
• Vänligen beskriv visningsproblemet. Om du har en skärmdump av denna buggen (vilket är bra), så kan du använda Imgur.com för att ladda upp den och kopiera/klistra in länken här.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Vad har du för webbläsare?
Google Chrome v79
• Var vänlig kopiera/klistra in texten på engelska istället för ditt eget språk. Om du har en skärmdump av denna buggen (vilket är bra), så kan du använda Imgur.com för att ladda upp den och kopiera/klistra in länken här.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Är denna text tillgänglig i översättningssystemet? Om den är det, var det mer än 24 timmar sedan den översattes?
• Vad har du för webbläsare?
Google Chrome v79
• Vänligen förklara ditt förslag exakt och koncist så att det är så enkelt som möjligt att förstå vad du menar.
When the game asks whether I want to use the distress signal and I click "No", my clock stops counting and I have no reason to believe that any more interaction with the question is required. It confused me greatly when the clock started counting again, and I thought that there must have been a communication problem with the server.
Moreover, even when people understand what's going on with the UI, there are situations where consensus is not reached. At the end of the linked game, we went through a lot of rounds of pressing buttons and arguing in the chat: you can see in the log that it skips from move 126 to move 144 (and I'm not entirely sure that the misplay by one of the players in the first trick wasn't a deliberate way of expressing dissatisfaction).
The idea of having a standardised and localised method to handle the discussion rather than just relying on chat is a good one, but I think that the implementation would be better in a simple three-phase process:
Phase 1: the current question: "Do you want to use the distress signal?" with options "No", "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise". If everyone says "No", skip phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2: those who said "No" get a message "Other players want to use the distress signal. What do you think is best?" with options "Clockwise", "Anticlockwise", "Either", "Please don't".
Phase 3: the commander decides.
It's less democratic, but it's finite. You can't win the argument by having more time on your clock.• Vad har du för webbläsare?
Google Chrome v79
Rapporthistorik
The Crew is a cooperative game, that's precisely the point of the game to discuss and debate.
I wish that the help button on the title line leads to a description, how the implementation works.
I believe that option 'distress yes, either direction' is useful.
It is a rather rude and implies dismissiveness, as if you don't care: www.thefreedictionary.com/whatever. It's also quite hated: www.huffpost.com/entry/most-annoying-word-_n_4474607
Better alternatives would be "Abstain", "Neutral" or "No opinion".
I've submitted "No opinion".
Lägg till något till denna rapport
- Ett annat spelbords-ID / drag-ID
- Löste F5 problemet?
- Uppträdde problemet flera gånger? Varje gång? Slumpmässigt?
- Om du har en skärmdump av denna buggen (vilket är bra), så kan du använda Imgur.com för att ladda upp den och kopiera/klistra in länken här.