@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
Either way, as I said, I'm not particularly invested in WoD, but Faraday asked for examples, so I gave examples of the types of things I see as needing improvement.
You mean, things you've seen. Because things have changed, apparently.
Again, changes are being made. Constantly.
@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
In the context of the roll command, roll Presence + Socialize + Striking Looks + Socialize: Format Events + Applicable Condition + Applicable Discipline is, to me, far simpler than having to go and either look up notes or open up PDFs or Google trying to figure out which PDF which thing is from so that you can remember that something is a 2.
Okay.
You'll be pleasantly surprised to learn that what you're proposing is the status quo, as far as I know.
@HelloProject
I understood what you were saying. And I guess you could have +roll Presence + Socialize + Striking Looks + Socialize: Formal Events + Applicable Condition + Applicable Discipline. I get that.
I guess, though, WoD is terrible for simplicity. For example, you can't really just type +roll Socialize, because you need to put in your applicable Attribute. And then, you could have the code scan your +sheet for applicable Merits and Powers, but there are so many of them, right?
It's presumed you know your PC well enough to know to hit +roll Presence + Socialize + 2 if you have Striking Looks 2. But, what if the GM doesn't think your Striking Looks should count in this particular case?
So, you have to string out your command. Which is kind of what you were railing against before.
@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
Let's use WoD as an example again. Looking at how roll works, ignoring the fact that we need a + in front of roll for some reason, there's other things where I just feel things could be way simpler sometimes. Like the fact that if you have an ability that adds a particular number to a roll, you can't just type that ability in and have it add to the roll, you have to go look that ability up or find your notes to figure out how much it adds, which is all kinds of annoying as shit when you know what you're using and don't necessarily remember the number.
When it comes to rolling on WoD games, I generally type '+roll <number of dice>', or '+roll <number of dice>=<difficulty>' if I'm on an older game. People like to +roll Intelligence + Science, I guess, because they want to prove or verify that the sum of their Intelligence + Science is a number. But if I'm RPing with people I trust, why would I care what their Intelligence + Science is?
Mine system's better, and it's not even finished.
@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
I don't really understand how I'm coming at it from a position of relative privilege. Considering that for most of my MUing life, I've been a non-coder, which is why it never occurred to me that things could be better.
If you've spent most of your MU existence as a non-coder, then you've had the privilege of enjoying the fruits of others' labor. That's what I mean by "position of relative privilege." My understanding from the coders I have personally known is that coding takes considerable time and effort. That is, they have invested a lot of time and effort into how they've designed, modified, and produced their code.
While my hyperbole might have been a bit extreme, I legitimately don't think that a lot of coders are in a position to think about something like UX anymore than the non-coder creator of the game generally knows what's going on with the code.
You may legitimately think this, but you're also legitimately presuming it. Hiring someone to advise on user experience for a video game that has a budget and is produced for mass consumption is very different than what the average coder does for a MUSH, where they aren't paid and rarely recognized for their efforts. When you're done coding your game, I'm nearly positive you will experience that usual shitting-on that I've heard many coders receive and complain about.
That said, I've been atop of games before, and I try to talk to my coders about what they want to do and if they can improve on things. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't. It has been said before, but a good game takes time to develop for this very reason. And the coders I know get really fussy when you push them to do something that their carefully-developed code won't handle without a massive overhaul.
I start discussions because I know that, regardless of my decade+ in the hobby, I'm still relatively new. And being relatively new, I think that it's important for me to occasionally bring up things that I've noticed or that I see as problems.
Again, this is not a new problem you're raising. But I've never seen someone describe the current state of any MUSH code as "monstrously shitty," especially when they are actually trying to start an open dialogue on improving code.
I want to contribute to the community, and I admittedly am still trying to improve at how I present myself and my arguments, when to be professional and when to be casual, but I 100% am just trying to help anyone who finds what I say or discuss helpful.
Fair enough. Let me suggest this, then: when you're dealing with a sub-group of the hobby who regularly takes crap and gets crap about their work, it's better to open with "let's work together in trying to pare down some of the redundant, old-fashioned, out-moded code we toss onto game" than with "the current state of affairs is bullshit and you ignorant fucks should have done shit to improve it by now."
People are trying to improve things. Honestly. So, my recommendation: minimize the hyperbole, ask questions, scout around, and take inspiration where you can find it.
@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
I thought you said you're ready for the flames?
Look you said this:
For years, since I even got into this hobby, I've noticed just really monstrously shitty design practices. One of the most grave shitty design practices is just what I can only describe as a complete disregard for UX design.
Has it ever occurred to you that there are people that work diligently and carefully on their games, and you just went and said, from a position of relative privilege, that what they've done is "monstrously shitty"? And then you conclude that this is a "complete disregard" for user experience? This is neither constructive nor civil.
I don't think you'll get much opposition here to the premise that certain things could be coded better, differently, or more efficiently. Certainly, I'm not going to argue here to the contrary.
When I say "leave the coders alone," I mean "focus on how you can make a better gaming experience for yourself and everyone around you." Blaming the code is easy: what's harder is actually writing up the help files, assisting players in using the commands, etc. So, when it comes to "improving user experience," I think: do what you can do where you can, player or staffer or coder. If you can code things better, great. If not, then still do what you can.
Flip the situation around. I'll bet coders roll their eyes until they spill out when people can't figure out what they consider to be relatively easy code to work with. And maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. I've found in my years that when people are new, other players come to their aid, and new players that invest themselves a little into learning the systems and the ways tend to stick around and meaningfully add to the experience. Once they've done that, like @Paris, they tend to gravitate towards the familiar because of that investment.
So, from my non-coder experience, I would say: maybe if we all just tried a little harder to learn, things would be better as a whole.
@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
I don't need to be an experienced coder to see with my own two eyes that things are needlessly complicated and could be less complicated, just like I don't need to be an experienced film maker to say when a movie is trash, or an experienced writer or literature expert to say that Moby Dick is a trash ass book and that Herman Melville can't write for shit.
You can say what you want. Your experience and insight is what gives your words weight.
I await the anticipated success of your project to convince coders to change their ways. I'll be over here, doing what I can do to make the user experience better.
@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
As far as I can tell, I've only been addressing coders, so what is the problem?
You don't see it? Okay.
You're not an experienced coder. I don't think you ought to lecture coders on their practices, as if they had not thought of it already. Because you're not an experienced coder.
Don't piss off the coders.
Instead, focus on what you can fix. Like policies, communication, grid design, administrative systems, wiki entries, etc.
Or, just design your own codebase and fix this whole barrier of entry thing through your own efforts.
@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
I can't see any particular reason why people would not want it to be simpler to do the things they're already doing. Unless you're talking from the perspective that I talk about rice cookers. I only hate rice cookers because I think they're lazy as shit when you can get a pot and learn to cook some freaking rice. But I don't really see where the pride is in not simplifying code syntax so that people can focus on doing things rather than how to do them.
Let me try to explain this in another way.
The number of headstaff on CoD games in particular that are also code-savvy is miniscule. In many cases, game owners rely on coders, and it has been this way for quite a while. We can all agree that it would be great if the headstaff was also conversant and capable in code, but that's not always the case. My understanding from my limited MUD experience is that the headstaff were.
I'm not conditioned that things can't be better. I'm conditioned to accept that unless I want to devote the time and energy to learning code, I will be relying on someone else. And I'm not going to lecture that someone else on what is or is not difficult to do. That's a very good way for me to lose my coder, and I'm not in a position to do that.
And for the record, I use rice cookers when I don't want to spend my energy focusing on cooking the rice.
And to the potential question of "who are you to say what is better", I'd say that anything that harms no one, makes doing something simpler, and gives you all of the options you had before without the mess, and most likely faster than before, is objectively better.
Excellent. Then do it. Why are you here attempting to lecture us?
Go. Do it. We'll wait.
Alright but I'm interested in lowering the barrier to entry into this hobby, and getting rid of all the nonsense people think is perfectly acceptable, which is why I made this topic and other topics. If you're not interested then what do you solve by expressing your disinterest?
I'm solving as much as you are by posting. I'm providing a reasonable counter-opinion here.
You talk about lowering the barrier to entry by improving user experience, and then hook on improving or simplifying code. I previously stated that you could improve user experience by enhancing communication of commands and processes, but this has nothing to do with code syntax. I more recently stated that I'm more interested in ideas that improve the user experience through game policies that add interesting RP elements, like politics, an economy, etc., but this also has nothing to do with code syntax.
And, as said above: if you are a coder, fantastic. Go and improve our commands and code, please, by all means. But it's not my focus or interest because I lack that skill set, and I'm not going to start rattling a cage for something I cannot do myself.
In the mean time, what I will do is suggest and propose things that I can implement, if I had my own game.
@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
I'm a bit confused about your point, because my entire argument is "make shit simpler" and "things could be simpler". What is there to disagree with? I'm not saying don't add new features, don't innovate or try new things. I'm saying that if you're gonna do it, don't make it a complete mess that needs 5 help files to explain how to use something.
You're presuming that people want it simpler. This is not always the case. People may want to simplify how things are done, but this doesn't necessarily mean keeping "things simple." As an example, people on Arx seem to want to add complexity to it.
I would assume that if you logged into a game that you want to play, and you thought it was way simpler than previous games you've played, while having the same basic functionality, you would think it was an improvement. I highly doubt you or anyone else would go "Well, shit, I miss when my syntax had needless complications".
Presuming that it's within the same system, sure. That'd be nice. But CoD isn't that clean when the powers have different rolls. It'd be very hard to boil it down to FS3's level of simplicity. And I can appreciate the difference, and not try to wedge a square block into my round hole.
It hurts.
Shav made her staff give up a lot to get her system working. And it did, for a while. She just did not want to relinquish control, and elected not to. That doesn't mean that RfK's political system was flawed.
CoFaB was also pretty nifty and workable.
We could pull lessons from these places and work on the ideas. We haven't. That's what I'm more interested in than "how can I make +roll simpler?" or "how can I make +jobs more user friendly?".
@Tempest said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
The barrier is, I'm guessing, that you can't make that game and then be involved in the actual politicking shit yourself if you're staff, so nobody's done it.
It's been done, and we both know it. There's a sacrifice to it, but that's part of it.
There are still better models than that, though, that have not been explored.
@Tempest said in Crunchy games?:
Are any of them active, and allow FUs?
That I don't know. Fires of Hope looked fun, but I know they sort of gimped FUs there.
@Tempest said in Crunchy games?:
Any active MUs out there that actually have stat/equipment/etc systems with more 'oomph' than WoD/FS3?
I think existing Star Wars games using SAGA have quite a crunchy array of weaponry.
@HelloProject said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
All of these things are a part of UX. UX means user experience.
I hope you understand the irony here.
You have the luxury and privilege of having a diverse set of experiences, I think. And that's fine. I do not, and I know where I have spent most of my years. The implicit onus on WoD games has less to do with the code and more to do with the storyline you play in. I would wager that many games don't really give a crap what equipment you have; as long as the participants in a scene don't care, no one cares -- and it's not a problem. This is different on a MUD, where, in my experience, if you don't got it, you don't got it.
For you, this is frustrating. I get that. For me, it isn't. And while there could be code improvements, when it comes to CoD games I'm far more interested in seeing whether it will try to create a political or economy system that would eventually create its own RP. Because I've seen it happen before, and I know it's possible.
Show "them" we can do better? What's the point? This isn't a competition. And I'm not one to condescend as to the choices of a particular community. I may think that people who play superhero games are masturbatory wanks, but that doesn't mean I think that WoD gamers are any better or worse.
What I've learned in a short few weeks is that there's a whole world of experience and gamers I've never played with, and I like them, and I'd rather adapt to their expectations than have them try to meet mine. And I think if more people embraced that attitude, we'd have fewer incidences of OOC drama.
@Lisse24 said in UX: It's time for The Talk:
I'm often frustrated on MUs in the disconnect between what you're expected to know to do and what's explained to you. MUs are not user friendly, not because telnet (although that to), but just because they don't tell you basic things and almost always assume some level of base knowledge, instead of assuming no base knowledge.
So, this really has nothing to do with UX, or MUDs, or MUSHes? It has to do with the lack of communication by staff when it comes to their policies.
I'm good with that.
But that has nothing to do with UX, or MUDs, or MUSHes, right? It has to do with the slipshod way many games arise, or the poor way games explain how to go about making a PC.
It's about communication, if I'm following you.
If that's a case, then shouldn't the topic be: why the hell can't staff be assed to properly document shit before rolling it out?