(PS4)The_Wyatt

PSN Member
  • Content count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42

About (PS4)The_Wyatt

  • Rank
    Silver Initiate

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    Coming Soon: Devstream #115!

    All I really want is some confirmation that you're actually working to fix the ghastly state of menu UX on consoles after the poorly-considered cursor update.
  2. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    [UI] I am tired of this. We are ALL tired of this!

    If we assume the current (or estimate based on the current reworked) UI, it depends on context. In relic management on the orbiter, show both: the relic tile itself and, when selected, mark the specific vaulted parts. This is desirable because if you're trying to build something and need bronze parts, you DON'T want to refine the relic. A good example of this is the Neo B2 that has the Tigris Prime Stock as it's only vaulted part. In mission selection, the relic should definitely have it. As for the contents, those need to be displayed better and more consistently anyway, but in the current state? Doesn't feel critical. At the reward selection, the vault symbol should absolutely be displayed on the item's tile because forcing recall, even after only a few minutes, remains a dark pattern.
  3. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    Thanks for Watching Devstream #114!

    @[DE]Rebecca your beret is super cute and I want one for my operator!
  4. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    Coming Soon: Devstream #114!

    Will finishers be receiving any changes? Please consider allowing larger weapons to hit multiple enemies with the same finisher animation like with every other attack. Also, will you be addressing the inputs for stances? They're very wonky and unreliable in my experience.
  5. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    [UI] I am tired of this. We are ALL tired of this!

    I think you should look up what "equally plausible" means. No, I'm dismissing it because it is a fallacy. "If we do A then we'll decide to do B later" is unconstructive nonsense and I know you can do better. Actually, in fact, you did. A shortcut from a relic directly to its codex entry isn't a bad idea. The only real big issue I see is that its a bit more complex than just putting a letter, icon, or string change in because it introduces a new UI transition. Clunky, but reduces the round trip actions from 14 to 2 and lets you more easily find where relics drop too; make a thread about this. (And sorry, I did mean to mention that I liked this idea.) I'm starting to wonder if you even read my post, though... the bit about not being blasé about clutter ring any bells? It's not that I "missed" it so much as it's just not relevant-- none of the new UI is even finalised yet. (But if we wanted to extrapolate a trend from what they've already shown, the density is actually going down.) Okay, but I also mentioned the reasoning for why I came to that conclusion. Maybe I should have spent more words clarifying that position, but I prefer to stay high level when speculating about code I'm not working on. That said, I see a fairly large difference between "estimating that there are several valid approaches from observing how existing UI elements have been used in the past" and "asserting the team is going to screw up and release an unusably cluttered UI at some unspecified point in the future because they marked vaulted relics now with zero evidence to support the claim". The former is something I think anyone could notice even if they don't do this stuff for a living. The latter is... honestly just kind of rude. I'm still not sure why you're so hung up on this, though. What's your angle here? I'm engaged in this conversation because I think this would be a nice thing that makes the experience a little better for a low cost. What happend to make you so... afraid?
  6. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    [UI] I am tired of this. We are ALL tired of this!

    You don't know that. You can't know that. Unless... have you done long term demographic research on the common player groups and their relic usage habits? Don't leave us hanging, that's cool data! Ahem. Here's an equally plausible conjecture: most "normal" players, being humans with brains, have some notion of loss aversion and scarcity even if the concept of vaulted relics hasn't even been introduced to them. Once it has, it leads to a reflexive optimisation that will see them using common relics and saving traces for better odds on things they can't otherwise get. I reiterate: the "slippery slope" is not a valid argument. Please don't make this mistake. To be fair, I'll grant UI clutter isn't something to be completely blasé about, but don't worry about it before it happens. Information density in most screens is pretty low, honestly, especially the ones involving relics. Even in a more dense screen, there are ways to prevent it from being overwhelming, so the mere threat that it could happen doesn't hold water. It's trivial. Implementing this could be as small as a string change, if they wanted to be bare bones about it. Even a more fancy implementation has several obvious approaches leveraging code infrastructure they clearly already have.
  7. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    [UI] I am tired of this. We are ALL tired of this!

    You realise "essential" is a synonym for "necessary", right? We are well aware of your opinion at this point. You have to consider how many steps it is from the UI where relics are relevant to the codex and back. Currently, it's something like 12 to 14 from refinement depending on how you count and requires you to hold the name of each relic in your head individually. And it's literally impossible to check the codex from relic selection in missions. It's honestly even worse than I thought. I've already explained who would be helped. Others in the thread have expressed support for various reasons. And the only actual counterargument I've seen you make thus far is it will make things easier on people trying to get platinum, which is... debatably a bad thing, I guess. If you have actual issues with the idea, I think we'd all be interested in hearing them so they can be addressed, but saying they're there and then playing with the slippery slope argument... I'm trying to assume good faith, but yeah, sorry, even your denial that it's salt looks pretty salty.
  8. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    [UI] I am tired of this. We are ALL tired of this!

    And any person without an eidetic memory. Anyone who hasn't entirely memorised what is and isn't vaulted. Anyone who doesn't spend time paying attention to news feeds because they're more interested in playing the game. Anyone new enough that the concept of "vaulted" hasn't even been mentioned yet. And sure, people who want to sell parts for platinum, too. But you're still harping about "necessary" instead of providing actual counterarguments for how this harms the user experience, so I have to wonder why you're so salty about the idea.
  9. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    [UI] I am tired of this. We are ALL tired of this!

    Remember, user experience isn't about "need". Don't fall into the trap of thinking that way.
  10. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    (XB1/PS4) Virtual Cursor Feedback Megathread

    Off the top of my head, R2 to sell current selection in the inventory and Triangle to change matchmaking in star chart are both missing from the current patch (the latter causes a pretty silly camera bug because it centres the view on the cursor (which is out in the middle of nowhere) when you pick one). R2 to view Warframe abilities in the arsenal is now contextually tied to the frame submenu, too-- I'm pretty sure it wasn't previously.
  11. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    (XB1/PS4) Virtual Cursor Feedback Megathread

    Now hold up. Despite what you may think, that's not what I was implying in the slightest and I don't appreciate you using my post to further harp on this point. "Something in the dev process is unhealthy and that makes me sad and concerned" does not imply "they're greedy". Think what you will, but don't put words in my mouth, please.
  12. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    TennoGen - TennoCon 2018 Panel Recap Thread

    God, please. I have a bad case of Dumb Sci-fi Hair and it is awful.
  13. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    (XB1/PS4) Virtual Cursor Feedback Megathread

    Double post? These days?
  14. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    (XB1/PS4) Virtual Cursor Feedback Megathread

    As someone else in the industry, I appreciate DE's drive and creativity immensely-- Plaudits where they're due; I don't think I have never been so excited for a game update as I am for Fortuna and Railjack. That said, I remain baffled that anyone thought the virtual cursor was fit for release to the public. Remember: this UI change came out of the blue as a point release right before a major content update and changed almost every menu interaction in the entire game. (Specifically, it changed them from snappy and reliable to sluggish and unreliable.) They pushed out a tiny patch in a hurry, but it didn't fix the most important things and was limited in what it could do. And then U23 came... though purported to have fixes, very little changed. Except 5% of the game screens were replaced with alpha versions from the upcoming major UI refresh. So while it's cute that you spent so many words waxing poetic about how hard our job is and how special we all are for working on software (please stop, there's nothing magical about it), I'm going to continue asking questions because this shouldn't happen in a healthy dev process. "Why were unfinished things merged to master?" "Why wasn't control parity maintained even in the new code?" "Why does list scrolling with the d-pad not work at all?" "Why did QA sign off on this?" "Why did the UX team decide this was okay?" "Why were so many breaking changes conflated into the client in a point release to the point that they can't even roll it back?"
  15. (PS4)The_Wyatt

    I want a lock on our items

    That's an interesting historical note. It raises more questions than it answers about their storage infrastructure and data structures than it addresses, but it's interesting. (Have they actually talked about internal representations at all before?) This is likewise extremely bizarre and smacks of bad storage infra. Adding capacity shouldn't be that painful. Just because I didn't show the back of an envelope with numbers on it doesn't mean I didn't think about this. "A few terabytes" is from taking that into account. The obvious implementation would be a flat single byte per item in a player's inventory. An overly-clever implementation would be a single bit per item, but also kind of silly. A good ordinary implementation would probably be something like three to five bytes per locked item which will probably come out ahead by a lot. But just to ballpark, let's say... 50m players (~20% more than have ever existed, if I recall the number mentioned on Tennolive correctly), each with 100 locked items at a cost of eight bytes per lock (double what I'd consider reasonable): 50,000,000 * 100 * 8 = 40,000,000,000 bytes ...hang on, that's just 40GB. I was apparently too tired to do numbers when I responded before, because I was off by two orders of magnitude. That's tiny. Depends on what you mean by "work". It does help sometimes and I don't think anyone's arguing that it should go away. That doesn't mean it's sufficient or that we shouldn't want the ability to strictly prevent ourselves from losing things we want to keep (and in doing so, reduce UI fatigue). This isn't an either/or proposition. That's sort of the point. It really depends on the implementation. I fully believe there are designs where it's low-friction to lock things, while still not making it too easy to unlock them in the inventory (conflating the inventory view and the sell view sort of sucks for this, I have to admit). That's a different scenario with different requirements. And I agree it's pretty cool for that adversarial situation. I disagree that it's going to be nearly as effective as you believe for selling things because it's still passive. And it still places the onus on the player to do the UI's job of bookkeeping. Unlocking something is deliberate; an active interaction that forces you into the mental context of why it was locked in the first place and the circumstances that led to it no longer being needed or wanted. It intrinsically cannot be ignored. (Anecdotally, when I'm selling, I always end up with a whole bunch of things and my confirmation list doesn't even show it all.) Man, you're really trying this again? Look, I have a dozen games on my phone right now that have precisely the lock (or "favourite" if you must) implementation suggested in this thread, so how about we just not get into making wild claims about what is and isn't super common. Anyway, even if we disagree, I think this was a good discussion because it challenged me to reexamine my assumptions and better pin down why I think this is still a good idea: it makes item management more fluent by mitigating human error and removing much of the tedium of double- and triple-checking sales before even hitting the button.