There's a word limit, right? I'm sure there's a word limit. This is gonna be a painstaking thing to post.
There seems to be varying perceptions of how much "actionable Feedback" the "legacy players" have provided towards the improvement of the new client. This thread serves to order the "actionable" feedback that has been given since its initial release and along the years in some sort of format.
Not all of these points were initially raised by me, far from it. These are all points that I subscribe to but if other points are raised that are deemed important in the context of this work, I shall expand the list.
I tried to refrain from inserting items that are mainly taste-related. Not because I find them unimportant or too hard to quantify, but because experience has shown that the company will dismiss these points immediately based on the "matter of taste" argument and it took enough time to type all of this out already that I don't need to waste more of it.
I am not doing this to berate anyone. I am doing this in the understanding that it is a common goal between both the players and Bytro that Supremacy as a product should be as good as it can be. From this is where I draw the conclusion that a loss in functionality would not be intended but rather an oversight in the development processes. I understand that the visuals are a major factor in "marketability", but this is not a painting. It is a thing that is actively interacted with by players and the way this interaction is accomodated is a part of the "marketable" experience.
Yes, this list will bank on comparisons to the Legacy client at some points. This is not because I'm so in love with Legacy and want to keep it around. I have made it explicitly clear in the past that I was never opposed to giving it at least a spit-shine, even modernizing the whole display.
It is just the most sensible thing to compare the new UI to because it's literally the same game. The good things that it offered are achievable within Supremacy1914 and my proof of them shall be the fact that they existed in Legacy. And then why shouldn't the new UI strive to include them as well? I do not point out things that were better in Legacy because me and Legacy need to get a room, I do it because those things have been implemented better in the same game before. It serves as proof of feasibility and it simply appears to be the most logically reasonable item to compare to for demonstrative reasons.
I would not be opposed to improvements to the UI that would also have been improvements to Legacy.
The only way to compile this I could commit to was a category format of sorts. It's not very possible to assign an order of severity to these issues that could be held up as anything near objective, so I refrained from doing so. An item being lower down in a chapter does not indicate anything about its percieved importance to me. And even still, this is not a perfect format. Some of these could easily tick multiple chapter's criteria.
CHAPTER ONE --- THIS DOES NOT LOOK RIGHT
These are issues I percieve as obvious to any observer, in the sense that it is clear that they are at least "not ideal". They are mainly concerned with visuals and contain cases where the visual representation of the game is severely tarnished to a point where it just doesn't "look good".
1.1 - The big one
Everything about 3D-Sprites overlapping. They somtimes do this to absolutely extreme effects:
This seems simply chaotic and completely unresolved by the display engine. It appears as though no care was given at all to the way situations like this are displayed to the user.
It is obvious to even the most casual of observers that this is in no way a crafty or appealing visualization of the game mechanics. It appears make-shift. Note that this is just one of countless examples.
1.2 - Everything overlaps everything everywhere
There seems to be no logic whatsoever that dictates which items overlap which items on the map view. The hierarchy, if there is any, appears to have just fallen into place in the order the items were added during the development process. Unit sprites overlapping the country's flag and leader names on the capital city are irritating, sometimes making both of them entirely impossible to see. The large amount of space that these sprites occupy without delivering any informative value to the player within that space exacerbates this problem. This is a large contrast to the "at a glance informative value" that you have attributed yourselves to the Legacy client and it looks chaotic and unorganized. The reasonable observer might find the choice to have informational content hidden behind unneccessary decor somewhat unusual.
Decide on an organized hierarchy of display order, if clashes cannot be resolved without overlapping, which would be the ideal first solution. Prioritize items by amount and importance and relevance of gameplay information they deliver.
Here, informative value gets lost from the map view. I have to select each unit individually to gain access to their numbers. The client does not even try to accommodate me here, and this is only three units. The Legacy client used to move the unit icons around if it had to and drew clear and distinct, sharp black lines from the icon to its location on the map if neccessary to be able to show both the full stack icons to give all the information on unit types and numbers as well as the precise location on the map. It quite literally went out of its way to be able to give all of these informations at a glance all the time. This functionality was essential to the informative value of the map display and is lost completely. Like, not even remnants are to be found. Everything overlaps everything everywhere all the time like it doesn't matter one single bit. I do not believe an argument of this being favourable to "marketability" can be made.
1.3 - Other general sillyness
It is objectively nonsensical to display the sprite of any kind of ship or submarine offset from its location in such a way that it is displayed "swimming on land":
There is no reasonable justification to this. It appears lazy and unfinished. Yes, that's where the sprite goes relative to the unit's location for all units all the time. But it objectively should not. This way of displaying naval units was not handed upon us by God above. It looks bad, it is disorienting on the map (see 2.1), it heavily gives off the impression of bad craftsmanship on the development of this display.
Re-design unit icons in a way that makes it possible to implement the functionality that was possible in the past, where they will avoid overlapping while maintaining the pointing lines to indicate precise location on the map. It is also undesirable to have unit icons cover such large parts of the map, because the map is an essential part of gameplay, too. They should be changed in such a way as to deliver information more precisely while being less intrusive to other information. This is one of the hallmarks of the Legacy client. Its unit icons could have been preserved and polished up, improving their appearance while maintaining their functional values, if no new design could fullfill the same standard. Since this was not done, a design that leans on these principles very heavily seems like an appropriate suggestion to make.