New McG said: While I appreciate the communication on this, the backtracking on this seems more disingenuous than on some of the recent changes. (For most of which I've tried to be fairly defensive of the devs.) When the defense to this one is "well, this changed but other bugs didn't get fixed because the UI team is different from the gameplay team", and then after it's universally disliked the story changes to, "oops, no, wait it's an 'issue' to be addressed", that makes it seem like the initial story was a way to try and avoid having to deal with the bug by selling it as a "new feature". It makes it sound as if the UI team had specifically made an effort to explain why the "new feature" had happened, because otherwise it would make the most sense for it to be explained as "it's a bug, we'll get it fixed". It's mildly disheartening as someone who really wants to think the team behind the game has the best intentions, even on seemingly small things.
Brigby said: New McG said: While I appreciate the communication on this, the backtracking on this seems more disingenuous than on some of the recent changes. (For most of which I've tried to be fairly defensive of the devs.) When the defense to this one is "well, this changed but other bugs didn't get fixed because the UI team is different from the gameplay team", and then after it's universally disliked the story changes to, "oops, no, wait it's an 'issue' to be addressed", that makes it seem like the initial story was a way to try and avoid having to deal with the bug by selling it as a "new feature". It makes it sound as if the UI team had specifically made an effort to explain why the "new feature" had happened, because otherwise it would make the most sense for it to be explained as "it's a bug, we'll get it fixed". It's mildly disheartening as someone who really wants to think the team behind the game has the best intentions, even on seemingly small things. I want to be as transparent as I can, so I will take fault for this confusion. This was not the fault of the development team. It was originally communicated to me as a change due to a bug, however it appears I misread it as an intentional design change, and announced it as such.The backtracking was not to mislead the player base, but rather my correction of the announcement to display the intended appropriate information. Once again, I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
@Brigby, thanks for keeping us updated and explaining what happened. No need to apologize, I'm just happy this is in fact a bug and not a new feature.
During your discussion with them this morning, did the Devs give any idea when this would be resolved?
Brigby said: New McG said: While I appreciate the communication on this, the backtracking on this seems more disingenuous than on some of the recent changes. (For most of which I've tried to be fairly defensive of the devs.) When the defense to this one is "well, this changed but other bugs didn't get fixed because the UI team is different from the gameplay team", and then after it's universally disliked the story changes to, "oops, no, wait it's an 'issue' to be addressed", that makes it seem like the initial story was a way to try and avoid having to deal with the bug by selling it as a "new feature". It makes it sound as if the UI team had specifically made an effort to explain why the "new feature" had happened, because otherwise it would make the most sense for it to be explained as "it's a bug, we'll get it fixed". It's mildly disheartening as someone who really wants to think the team behind the game has the best intentions, even on seemingly small things. I want to be as transparent as I can, so I will take fault for this confusion. This was not the fault of the development team. It was originally communicated to me as a change due to a bug, however it appears I misread it as an intentional design change, and announced it as such.The backtracking was not to mislead the player base, but rather my correction of the announcement to display the intended appropriate information. Once again, I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. @Skrofa @mpqr7 [Added as they had asked about this in a previous comment]
LifeofAgony said: So as I posted - I was correct. It was a bug that was then tried to be covered as an "improvement" only to then realize it was doing what they thought either.High comedy of errors.
bluewolf said: What is the dev's goal? User-friendly UI? Ease in understanding your progress at a glance? If yes, revert to prior or implement one of the many suggestions. Is your goal confusion? Making things unclear for some reason? Leave as is.The green check mark was widely praised. It makes it easier and more fun to play the game. Again, what is your goal?
Brigby said: @Felonius This was a rather recent bug occurrence, so I'm afraid I am not aware of a definitive time-frame for the fix. I will be sure to update everyone should I receive news of a fix date.
nickaraxnos said: @Brigby i am reading your first post (edit version) and it says its a known bug.But a few comments before you are saying is a rather recent bug occurence.My english are not very good so i might not understand well but i think these 2 sentences dont fit. No?
Brigby said: @Dragon_Nexus This was not the fault of the development team, but rather my own fault of misreading the information they presented me with. I did make the announcement on my own to inform the players of this change, but the information given was originally intended to be a notice of a bug, as opposed to a new feature.I have edited the title, updated the original post, and made a few comment replies to explain myself further. (One of which is actually above your post, coincidentally)
Brigby,
Understood. I eagerly look forward to your update. Thanks for the reply and keeping us up to date!
LordXberk said: Borstock said: I don't like the change, but I will admit to having a hard time figuring out what is so difficult about keeping track of how many times you've cleared a node. I always play in order. That order changes depending on my mood and whether or not I'm competing or just clearing for rewards, but it's an order nonetheless. I rarely look at the clears number at all. I know how many times I've cleared a particular node because I know where I am in the order. Uh, good luck doing that in the Florida sub when you go for your final clear.
Borstock said: I don't like the change, but I will admit to having a hard time figuring out what is so difficult about keeping track of how many times you've cleared a node. I always play in order. That order changes depending on my mood and whether or not I'm competing or just clearing for rewards, but it's an order nonetheless. I rarely look at the clears number at all. I know how many times I've cleared a particular node because I know where I am in the order.
ejm04 said: Borstock said: I don't like the change, but I will admit to having a hard time figuring out what is so difficult about keeping track of how many times you've cleared a node. I always play in order. That order changes depending on my mood and whether or not I'm competing or just clearing for rewards, but it's an order nonetheless. I rarely look at the clears number at all. I know how many times I've cleared a particular node because I know where I am in the order. That works for ordered subs. Florida was a mess. Savage Land isn't much better. There are plenty out there that aren't along a straight progression.