#36423: "The new distress signal UX needs improvement"
Με τι σχετίζεται αύτη η αναφορά;
Τι συνέβη; Επιλέξτε από τα παρακάτω
Τι συνέβη; Επιλέξτε από τα παρακάτω
Ελέγξτε αν υπάρχει ήδη αναφορά για το ίδιο θέμα
Εάν ναι, παρακαλούμε ΨΗΦΙΣΤΕ για αυτήν την αναφορά. Στις εκθέσεις με τις περισσότερες ψήφους δίνεται προτεραιότητα!
# | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
---|
Λεπτομερής περιγραφή
• Παρακαλούμε κάντε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του μηνύματος που βλέπετε στην οθόνη σας, αν υπάρχει.
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.• Παρακαλώ εξηγήστε τι θέλατε να κάνατε, τι κάνατε και τι συνέβη
• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v79
• Παρακαλώ κάνε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του κειμένου που απεικονίζεται στα αγγλικά αντί για αυτό που είναι στη γλώσσα σου.. Αν έχεις απόσπασμα οθόνης από αυτό το σφάλμα (είναι καλή αυτή η πρακτική), μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις το Imgur.com για να το ανεβάσεις και να κάνεις αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του συνδέσμου εδώ.
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.• είναι αυτό το κείμενο διαθέσιμο στο σύστημα μετάφρασης; Αν ναι, έχει μεταφραστεί για παραπάνω από 24 ώρες;
• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v79
• Παρακάλώ εξηγήστε την πρότασή σας με ακρίβεια και περιεκτικότητα, ώστε να είναι όσο το δυνατόν πιο εύκολο να γίνει αντιληπτό τι εννοείτε.
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.• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v79
• Τι εμφανιζόταν στην οθόνη όταν σταμάτησε (Κενή οθόνη; Μέρος του περιβάλλοντος του παιχνιδιού; Μήνυμα σφάλματος;)
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.• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v79
• Ποιο μέρος των κανόνων δεν έγινε σεβαστό από την μετατροπή του παιχνιδιού για την 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.• Είναι η παραβίαση των κανόνων ορατή στην αναπαραγωγή του παιχνιδιού; Αν ναι, σε ποια κίνηση;
• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v79
• Ποια ήταν η δράση του παιχνιδιού που ήθελες να κάνεις;
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.• Τι προσπαθείτε να κάνετε για να ενεργοποιείσετε αυτήν την ενέργεια του παιχνιδιου;
• Τι συνέβη όταν προσπαθήσατε να το κάνετε αυτό (μνμ σφάλματος, μνμ στην μπάρα κατάστασης, ...);
• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v79
• Σε ποια φάση του παιχνιδιού προέκυψε το πρόβλημα (ποιά ήταν η τρέχουσα οδηγία στο παιχνίδι);
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.• Τι συνέβη όταν προσπαθήσατε να κάνετε κάποια ενέργεια στο παιχνίδι (μνμ σφάλματος, μνμ στην μπάρα κατάστασης, ...);
• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v79
• Παρακαλούμε περιγράψτε το πρόβλημα απεικόνισης που έχετε. Αν έχεις απόσπασμα οθόνης από αυτό το σφάλμα (είναι καλή αυτή η πρακτική), μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις το Imgur.com για να το ανεβάσεις και να κάνεις αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του συνδέσμου εδώ.
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.• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v79
• Παρακαλώ κάνε αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του κειμένου που απεικονίζεται στα αγγλικά αντί για αυτό που είναι στη γλώσσα σου.. Αν έχεις απόσπασμα οθόνης από αυτό το σφάλμα (είναι καλή αυτή η πρακτική), μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις το Imgur.com για να το ανεβάσεις και να κάνεις αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του συνδέσμου εδώ.
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.• είναι αυτό το κείμενο διαθέσιμο στο σύστημα μετάφρασης; Αν ναι, έχει μεταφραστεί για παραπάνω από 24 ώρες;
• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v79
• Παρακάλώ εξηγήστε την πρότασή σας με ακρίβεια και περιεκτικότητα, ώστε να είναι όσο το δυνατόν πιο εύκολο να γίνει αντιληπτό τι εννοείτε.
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.• Ποιο είναι το πρόγραμμα περιήγησής σου;
Google Chrome v79
Ιστορικό αναφορών
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".
Πρόσθεσε κάτι σε αυτήν την αναφορά
- Άλλο ID τραπεζιού/ ID κίνησης
- Το F5 έλυσε το πρόβλημα;
- Το πρόβλημα εμφανιζόταν αρκετές φορες;Παντού ; Τυχαία;
- Αν έχεις απόσπασμα οθόνης από αυτό το σφάλμα (είναι καλή αυτή η πρακτική), μπορείς να χρησιμοποιήσεις το Imgur.com για να το ανεβάσεις και να κάνεις αντιγραφή/επικόλληση του συνδέσμου εδώ.