"Sending fleet" with one window

Dimmetr · Dec 5th 2010, 4:21pm

From our board:

Now we send fleet in three steps. The idea is to reduce this process to one window. Like this

Gerti · Dec 7th 2010, 11:30am

This would make "Speedsafe" against interception more effectiv .... and this is in my opinion one more step to kill "skillgame" !

kwinse · Dec 7th 2010, 10:15pm

The problem with one page is that the options available on fleet2 and fleet3 are dependent on the previous pages, fleet3 especially. You put it all on one page, it potentially causes more problems than it is worth, whether with cumbersome javascript/ajax or with slow and potentially buggy error checking on the backend.

Plus the layout required for such a system seems to go against the current aesthetics.

Personally I don't see what's wrong with the current system.

tomas · Dec 9th 2010, 2:12am

Don't think it would speed up sending fleets.
Looks kinda messy when it's all in one page.

Kebab · Dec 10th 2010, 1:26am

imo, it's fine how it is, changing it would most likely cause more problems than it's worth...

Horizon · Dec 10th 2010, 9:17am

It's not bad but there is too much on one site. This is quite confusing.

Kelder · Dec 12th 2010, 1:15pm

Scripters would love this, they can send fleets with a single http request then. No need anymore to parse intermediary pages or simulate a human clicking 3 times, just send out requests and launch 5 fleets per second.

Especially for avoiding phalanx attacks: prepare the request to send and just flood the server around send time. All it can do is send back a launch failure a lot of times, instead of currently where you need 3 pages between fs arrival and incoming attack.

And as said: way too complex for normal people who don't use scripts.

Mary · Dec 12th 2010, 1:44pm

I wouldn't say it's easier like this. You know, if you make a mistake You can't get back, just "send" and and it's in move. In a few steps there is a chance to think about the movement and possibility to return.

STRYKER · Feb 18th 2011, 1:54pm

Well, in case of errors, i guess the way it is!

Lao Tzi · Feb 18th 2011, 4:31pm

I'll like to be how it's now
the change will kill " esthetics" and you make a mistake selecting sth wrong you can not return

The Truth · Feb 18th 2011, 5:39pm

I must admit that what you proposed Dimmetr is really practical in time of needs . Though it will remove the esthetic part of the fleet pages

as said Lao Tzi .

WeTeHa · Jun 29th 2011, 5:46pm

I agree with most opionions. Would be easier to save your fleet, it looks not good and could lead into several problems. We should keep it as it is. We already received suggestions to merge fleet 2 and fleet 3, but not all on one page.

marshen · Jun 29th 2011, 6:10pm

usability engineering often tells you to split functionality instead of making one big dialog because this can overwhelm ppl. usability should be kept in mind for the decision.

Kebab · Jun 29th 2011, 6:13pm

marshen wrote:

usability engineering often tells you to split functionality instead of making one big dialog because this can overwhelm ppl. usability should be kept in mind for the decision.

+1
Current way is nice and easy to understand, and doesn't "overwhelm" people who are new to the idea of fleeting

Valent · Mar 14th 2012, 3:25pm

I was playing around with the idea and while accepting all the arguments, I think 3 pages are a bit too much .
In terms of complexity, page I and page II can be successfully merged, leaving the resource and mission type for the page III ( as it is in present)

STRYKER · Mar 14th 2012, 10:42pm

I agree, two pages are of great size!
3 pages can affect the time to get away with the fleet.

Share