#36423: "The new distress signal UX needs improvement"
¿Sobre qué es este informe?
¿Qué ha pasado? Por favor, selecciona una de las opciones siguientes
¿Qué ha pasado? Por favor, selecciona una de las opciones siguientes
Por favor, comprueba si ya hay un informe sobre el mismo tema
Si es así, por favor VOTA por este informe. ¡A los informes con más votos se les da PRIORIDAD!
# | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
---|
Descripción detallada
• Por favor, copia/pega el mensaje de error que ves en tu pantalla, si hay alguno.
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.• Por favor, explica lo que querías hacer, lo que hiciste y lo que pasó
• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor, copia/pega el texto mostrado en inglés en lugar de en tu idioma. Si tienes una captura de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar Imgur.com para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.
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.• ¿Está este texto disponible en el sistema de traducción? Si es así, ¿ha sido traducido hace más de 24 horas?
• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor explica tu sugerencia de manera precisa y concisa para que sea lo más fácil posible entender lo que quieres decir.
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.• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v79
• ¿Qué había en la pantalla cuando se quedó bloqueado? (¿mensaje de error?, ¿pantalla en blanco?, ¿una parte de la interfaz del juego?)
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.• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v79
• ¿Qué parte de las reglas no se ha respetado en la adaptación de BGA?
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.• ¿La infracción de las reglas es visible en la repetición de la partida? Si es así, ¿en qué jugada?
• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v79
• ¿Qué acción de juego querías realizar?
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.• ¿Qué es lo que trataste de hacer para activar esta acción del juego?
• ¿Qué sucedió cuando lo hiciste (el mensaje de error, mensaje en la barra de estado del juego, ...)?
• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v79
• ¿En qué etapa de la partida ocurrió el problema (cuál era la instrucción actual del juego)?
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.• ¿Qué sucedió cuando trataste de hacer una acción de juego (mensaje de error, mensaje en la barra de estado del juego, ...)?
• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor, describe el problema de visualización. Si tienes una captura de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar Imgur.com para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.
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.• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor, copia/pega el texto mostrado en inglés en lugar de en tu idioma. Si tienes una captura de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar Imgur.com para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.
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.• ¿Está este texto disponible en el sistema de traducción? Si es así, ¿ha sido traducido hace más de 24 horas?
• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v79
• Por favor explica tu sugerencia de manera precisa y concisa para que sea lo más fácil posible entender lo que quieres decir.
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.• ¿Qué navegador estás usando?
Google Chrome v79
Historial de informes
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".
Agregar a este informe
- Otro ID de partida / ID de jugada
- ¿Se resolvió el problema al pulsar F5?
- ¿Apareció el problema varias veces? ¿Cada vez? ¿Aleatoriamente?
- Si tienes una captura de este error (buena práctica), puedes usar Imgur.com para subirla y copiar/pegar el enlace aquí.