Semproser

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: 

My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. 
I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.

lol
Bullnosing is rounding a hard edge-face into a semi-cylinder. Like this: 

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: 

My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. 
I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.

I wouldn't worry about it, this forum is basically designed for overthinking things. Any discussion about experience with the game is under NDA and we've barely got 4 hours worth of (some very old) footage and descriptions with fairly little actual gameplay. What else can we do but overthink things

I wouldn't worry about it, this forum is basically designed for overthinking things. Any discussion about experience with the game is under NDA and we've barely got 4 hours worth of (some very old) footage and descriptions with fairly little actual gameplay. What else can we do but overthink things

Whole-heartedly agree. Aesthetic delays between menus are rage-inducing. I can literally feel my time being wasted having to sit through the same thousands of menu transitions in warframe. 

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: 

My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. 
I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: 

My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. 
I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: 

My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. 
I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: 

My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. 
I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: 

My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. 
I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.

I spent some time as a UI developer and intend to in the near future, and one aspect of this video had me slightly wary: 

My concern is with the responsiveness of UI elements. It's been proven by studies (and anyone that has used any bad UI for an extensive amount of time will tell you) that added delays of over 100ms between interaction and response leads to user-input frustration. As displayed at 0:07 pressing b opens a menu, however it does so slowly, sacrificing usability for an entirely aesthetic animation. At the very first time you use something slow but pretty you'll think it looks good, but after the 10th time you'll notice it could be faster, and the 100th you'll be frustrated. Same goes for the options highlighting at 0:28. 
I'm not saying that everything in the game is like this, but simply giving a warning that UI development with little regard to responsiveness will give a bad user experience. So please head this and make sure you aren't intentionally adding delays of over 100ms just because it might look pretty. Making a user interface have a responsive design is critical to how users perceive it. Thanks for your time.

I completely back NQ decision to have no collision damage in the game. Although cool, it very rarely works well with voxels, and it is never ever cheap in terms of calculations. Just look at the mess that is Space Engineers - any kind of collision and you drop frames like nothing I've ever seen before. 

Obviously nothing is perfect. But what I was really trying to avoid is some idiot coming along, being the first to a planet because he happened to drift there first, and naming is "RANDOM LOLOLO XD XD" and that being one of the 5 core important planets. Then with that name stuck forever, the rest of the community has to deal with the immaturity of a single person who just got there first. Also if there are 4 or 5 big corporations on a planet, if my first suggestion is used then the biggest of them will probably name is "Star Conferdacy Planet 3" or something as it puts their factions name in the planet, asserting their very slight dominance. But if my second suggestion is used, it would be a lot more community focused and hence a lot less likely to be named after the richest lot there and more what the people of the planet want. 
 
Actually come to think of it, a better solution would be to only be able to rename a prefix, postfix or infix, for example the most they could do would be "Star Confederacy controlled Yavin-XI" Where the generated name for the planet was Yavin-IX. By having a name checker that requires the original name to be in the new name somewhere? That way people can be creative about it and have it in a more appropriate part of the name. So even "The Peoples Republic of Yaxin-IX and Star Alliance" would be acceptable to the system. I reckon that would get good results. 

Nicely pointed out, I hadn't considered that option:
 
*Avatar specific gravity*
 
It would be certainly perfect for the things I'm suggesting building wise. The only downside really is that occasionally while working in your office building someone might just casually walk up the wall and through your 80th floor window. haha.
 
As for your problem AccuNut with other gravity sources nearby, somehow I doubt their engine will actually employ a universal gravity field. It will probably be more in the sense of "if within X Radius of planet, affected by gravity of planet" for people and constructs, and a different model entirely for the space stations as they are supposed to just orbit the nearest large cosmic entity (or so someone said, I've got no sources on that). This would mean that on ships it would be likely gravity is handled in a way similar to "Everything inside this cuboid is affected by construct Y's gravity", where the cuboid is just big enough to encapsulate the construct. This is the most likely, as pretty much every other free roam space game does it like this. This would also mean that the cuboid gravity of the construct overrides the gravity of the planet entirely, otherwise things would become extremely strange in orbit. 
 
However "gravity emitters" like I suggest wouldn't use a cuboid that by default encapsulates the entire construct, but would give the user the ability to put a shape somewhere and anything inside that shape is affected by a certain gravity simulating force. Thing is, if this shape is a square (like in Space Engineers) my cuboid city idea still couldnt be employed perfectly as the corners wouldn't be covered properly without extra, diagonal facing gravity emitters. Which would be rather strange. This is what that would look like: http://www.printablee.com/postpic/2014/04/square-box-template-printable_116047.png - the important part here is the lack of gravity at the corners. 
 
However if the shape of the gravity emitters would be customisable, that would lead to a lot more fun. For example, gravity parcour maps, multidimensional command stations/bridges (which I have several concepts for), and of course cuboid city ships. However actually doing that even with the given tools might be hard, as the "correct" gravity field shape for a cuboid would be what I can only describe as an inverted square based & topped trapezoid sided pyramid. Like this: http://www.mathaware.org/mam/00/master/essays/B3D/2/JPG/figure19.jpg
Specifically 6 of them, one for each face, this allows for no gaps in between, and would look like this: http://www.mathaware.org/mam/00/master/essays/dimension/JPG/figure28.jpg
 
 
So in the end (and TL;DR) : 
 
Although it would lead to quite a lot of creative outlet to have customization of shapes from gravity emitters I imagine, it would probably be a great deal simpler and easier for the developers to just have user-set gravity, allowing any client to orient themselves however they want when off-planet. Probably locking this to 6 axis or so would be advisable. 

Very true, and a convincing argument!
 
I agree, this would eliminate a lot of the confusion, since the "planet name" is staying the same, but would still allow for some kind of naming.
 
Here is yet another option: the original discoverer gets INDIRECT naming rights with the final name being decided by regional or planetary vote.
Here is how it would work: someone discovers a planet. At this point the planet is given a procedurally-generated designation or name.(HS4-RD, Yavin-IX, etc.) The way I understand it, the universe (multiverse?) will be divided into "regions" containing multiple planets each. If this new planet is in an established region, he can call for a vote right away. He suggests a name, and it either passes or not. If not, he can continue to suggest options until one does pass, or he gives up and transfers naming rights to someone else.
 
If it is a new or unestablished region,(meaning; a region needs X-number of players in it to become established,) then he can either wait for it to become established, or call for a vote from the nearest established region.
This system would avoid stupid and organization-based names,(for the most part,) give the original discoverer the satisfaction of choosing the name, and get a large amount of the community involved in the process.
 
Alternatively, it could be a planetary vote once, say, 60% of the planet is claimed.(Not necessarily controlled.)
This option unfortunately still leaves the door open to an organization discovering a planet, then flooding it with their own people so that any name they choose passes, but it is another way to do it.
 
Or even a combo of one of these and the prefix/suffix/inix idea. The name is chosen as above, but can be partially modified like you suggested!
 
However they decide to do it, I think there should be recognition given to the discoverer. Maybe some fine print under the planet name whenever it is displayed: "discovered by: XXXX".
 
Gotta say Semproser, genius idea on the fixed name with prefix/suffix/inix being rename-able! Just so long as it still comes up by it's fixed name when you are searching the planet database for it.

Obviously nothing is perfect. But what I was really trying to avoid is some idiot coming along, being the first to a planet because he happened to drift there first, and naming is "RANDOM LOLOLO XD XD" and that being one of the 5 core important planets. Then with that name stuck forever, the rest of the community has to deal with the immaturity of a single person who just got there first. Also if there are 4 or 5 big corporations on a planet, if my first suggestion is used then the biggest of them will probably name is "Star Conferdacy Planet 3" or something as it puts their factions name in the planet, asserting their very slight dominance. But if my second suggestion is used, it would be a lot more community focused and hence a lot less likely to be named after the richest lot there and more what the people of the planet want. 
 
Actually come to think of it, a better solution would be to only be able to rename a prefix, postfix or infix, for example the most they could do would be "Star Confederacy controlled Yavin-XI" Where the generated name for the planet was Yavin-IX. By having a name checker that requires the original name to be in the new name somewhere? That way people can be creative about it and have it in a more appropriate part of the name. So even "The Peoples Republic of Yaxin-IX and Star Alliance" would be acceptable to the system. I reckon that would get good results. 

For example in the most recent AMA video he answers questions about the damage model and how its related to voxels. Specifically about how damage actually breaks voxels and makes realistic type damage to blocks and systems. He doesn't mention there that this is something they aren't planning on doing before launch. We've seen ships with gun, and statements like those about how damage affects voxels. Unless you really read into it, you'd think CvC would be in this game. Hence it is misleading and should be addressed. 

For example in the most recent AMA video he answers questions about the damage model and how its related to voxels. Specifically about how damage actually breaks voxels and makes realistic type damage to blocks and systems. He doesn't mention there that this is something they aren't planning on doing before launch. We've seen ships with gun, and statements like those about how damage affects voxels. Unless you really read into it, you'd think CvC would be in this game. Hence it is misleading and should be addressed. 

"But granpa, how did you bring down the megalith cruiser of the killsquad clan?" 
"With THIS KNIFE...and some damned good whiskey" 

"But granpa, how did you bring down the megalith cruiser of the killsquad clan?" 
"With THIS KNIFE...and some damned good whiskey" 

"But granpa, how did you bring down the megalith cruiser of the killsquad clan?" 
"With THIS KNIFE...and some damned good whiskey" 

us old time veterans will be sitting in the tavern looking at these war mad newbies with their 1000 player cvc battles in years to come, reminiscing about the good old days when you had to get your lazy ass out of the ship to avatar vs avatar to destroy the ship. "They don't even know how good they have it" we'll say!

In response to Danger's comment; I dont disagree with you on any one point. However, you seem to be missing both the tone of this thread and the purposes of a forum like this one.
 
I did not start this thread to whine about the game and make everyone think it was doomed. I started it to make sure that there is a record of a very legitimate concern that many in the community share. That is the whole purpose of alpha forums after all; to make sure the community shares how it feels about current development plans.
 
I think you're making a huge mistake by taking the position that skepticism is somehow wrong, or that we should keep our mouths shut about what we consider to be potential problems. That doesn't actually help anyone.

Could we get an open-topped cockpit for planetary travel?
 
Yeah, I'm talking hover-bike style cockpit, not unlike a speeder or motorcycle. Here are the potential benefits:
 
-It would look totally sick!
 
-Less resources and lighter weight means easier to build and easier to propel ~faster
 
-The exposed nature would allow players to shoot you dead, despite being in a construct. Since Construct vs Construct combat won't be there at launch, this would allow lower-level play to include some sort-of vehicular combat.
 
-Can't go into space with it
 
-This would allow players to have a low-tier transportation system for traveling across a planet surface that is easy to steal/lose but easy to replace
 
-Organize SWEET hover-races
 
Plus who doesn't love speeders?