I don't understand that there is not more negative comment. I find the new UI VERY bad. Changing a UI so drastically is a very bad move... it would have been better to include the new options in the existing menu structure.
In the alliance that I'm a member of in Unity the general idea is also negative... I don't think we are the only ones.... step up people!
I don't think there is any kind of censorship, myself I have been critical about many things, and my posts are still here.
I think a majority of players do not visit forums for one or other reason...and some maybe even don't know about them.
There is no point complaining. All you get is sarcastic comments, patronizing and the conclusion is that we are the bad guys cause we don't understand these changes and we are not open to new things.
But hey, it's not my game. Of course they can do whatever they want as long as they can afford it from a business perspective.
It is a bit simple to ask for censorship and to mark all oposite comments as "sarcastic", "patronizing" and so on. First of all, there is no censorship as long as a discussion can be made. There will be if someone leaves the path of normal discussing and getting rude or harming anyone or threat someone. But that is no censorship in the way you are talking about.
We did offer this new version in an early access game world and offered every player the possibility to have a look at this and comment the new versions and bring ideas and tell what is missing or should be done other. Some used that. Now we received after the launch of the version on all game worlds critical comments about some parts. And we stated more than once, that we will do our best to make it better - as always. So if you have points, let us know.
Well, to give you three examples of that attitude.
1. Earlier version: Some time ago i asked that a confirmation should be implemented before buying an airplane from the market because it was very easy to accidentally buy an aircraft and there are numerous threads in this forum which prove this. A simple javascript alert saying "Are you sure" would have sufficed. The team's answer was something like "Are you sure you would still not accidentally buy it ?". Well, nothing is sure in life but this would maybe solved 90% of the complaints. This is what i call "patronizing" or "sarcastic" attitude. The thread is here somewhere in the forum but i don't have now the patience to find it.
2. Now with 6.2 the Route management is gone. Basically if you have more then a few tens of aircrafts managing your routes is impossible, at least not in a sane amount of time. . Everyone says its not OK but all we get is hints that some things might be solved and some not. In my region there is a saying. "If one person tells you that your drunk you might be tempted not to believe him, if 3 people tell you your drunk then you should go get a sleep because you're probably drunk".
3. The new themes. There were initially 2 themes both of which were quite hard to read. After some initial feedback the Classic theme was introduced but it was treated like a step child all the time (i remember reading that this is a compromise) and it still has usability/readability issues.
Regarding Quimby. To play on Quimby costed money and not everyone wanted to do that. I find it a poor excuse to blame us for not testing the new version. It is now clear that the new version was not tested/researched extensively just by looking the sheer amount of issues both regarding information missing or usability. When the team announced that Quimby is the testbed for this game i never imagined that Quimby doesn't even end and the team rushes to deploy the game to all game worlds. For such a big change i would expected a few months of notice time to accommodate and give feedback, something like "look we're going to launch the new version on DD-MM-YYYY and be prepared for it". And when i say notice i say ingame message a few months before because not everyone checks forums all the time.
Re 1: I assume the reason for that answer category is the point, that on a very regular base people accidentally confirm things. So if you increase those confirmations, you will probably even bring more people to confirm things without thinking what they actually confirm. That's one side of the medal, the other is the question whether actually all people want to see this. For myself - no. I don't want to confirm regular commands. I do understand, that this is an issue especially for smaller airlines, but there are other things where you have to be focused as well .. let's say building terminals, if you enter a digit too much, it's 10 times the cost.
Re 2: I think it's stated, that the change in route management is under review, including the constraints that have to be dealed with.
Re 3: There are different views on the different themes out there, that aren't really reflected by this generalization. I think there is an awareness across the team, that still a number of players do have problems with aspects of one or all themes. From my personal view (!), there are other things that need attention at the moment, as one can fairly deal with the themes.
I cannot agree with point 1. By the design of that dropdown selector itself was very easy to accidentally buy the plane. I'm working as a software developer myself in a rather large company and there is an internal rule that every critical operation MUST be confirmed by the user. And you're doing that patronizing again : "people to confirm things without thinking what they actually confirm". I read this as: there is no point implementing that because users anyway don't read/think confirmation. That is an offensive assumption. And assumption is the mother of all f..kups.
It is now clear that the new version was not tested/researched extensively just by looking the sheer amount of issues both regarding information missing or usability. When the team announced that Quimby is the testbed for this game i never imagined that Quimby doesn't even end and the team rushes to deploy the game to all game worlds. For such a big change i would expected a few months of notice time to accommodate and give feedback, something like "look we're going to launch the new version on DD-MM-YYYY and be prepared for it". And when i say notice i say ingame message a few months before because not everyone checks forums all the time.
- There was a general knowledge that the new user interface was coming live in 2014. There were demo videos of the new interface where you could have noticed the removal of route management. Then, in December Quimby was lunched and information was provided that the change would be coming to all game worlds. 2 and a half months later, it did. So it's not like there was not a sufficient time to communicate this.
- Having said that, the new interface was beta tested. Many of the issues that come up right now were pointed out in Beta testing, and were given secondary priority, now with many people complaining they are being reviewed again. But note, that there were tens of other issues that were noted in beta testing and resolved even before the launch of Quimby.
I cannot agree with point 1. By the design of that dropdown selector itself was very easy to accidentally buy the plane. I'm working as a software developer myself in a rather large company and there is an internal rule that every critical operation MUST be confirmed by the user. And you're doing that patronizing again : "people to confirm things without thinking what they actually confirm". I read this as: there is no point implementing that because users anyway don't read/think confirmation. That is an offensive assumption. And assumption is the mother of all f..kups.
First, you are quoting me without setting the things in context. I'm not going to comment on that part further, than expressing that this is not what I was intending to say.
Second. The question is where to draw the line between critical and non-critical commands and to balance this against usability. And I think it's fair to say, that people come to a different result.