Squadron search by tags is unusable, since beta.

I mean, why do we even have "Filter search" button with tags to choose, if we can't apply that filter in first place? Only buttons in "Filter Search" are Back and Clear Filters. There is just no way to find a desired squadron by tags, only by name of it.

'This has been like this in Beta, and it still is - unusable. Please add "Apply filters" button, so that it can be used finally.
 
Yea. I have bug reported it in the beta. As soon as squadrons were added. But hey, just because somebody reports obviously broken stuff doesn't mean that anybody will ever take a look at it.
.
 
Or, it's logged and sitting on the list while they address the issues and release patches. You know, like normal software dev.
 
The entire UI of the Squadrons page seems to need more work. I tried to search for a few squadrons last night, and sometimes the search results were not updated based on my new search keywords, other times, the results page was not showing Squadrons with names that matched my search keywords at all.

A few times it helped to exit and re-enter the display for a new search, but not always.
 
Filter Search broken. Why?
.
What do you mean why? Because they missed to add an essential button.
- We have "back". Leaves the search window without doing anything.
- We have "Clear Filters". Which unchecks all filters you might have selected. But does nothing else.
.
And that is ALL we have. There is no "OK" or "Apply filter" or anything like that. The filter page is a pure dummy. It's probably the most shameful think for FDs QA forever. There's plenty of bugs which are hard to find. Which really only are obvious if you know the requirements or use cases.
.
But this one is plain and obvious. Even if you have no requirements or anything, if you do nothing else than basic explorative testing, you should still stumble over this. Anybody who just once, for the mere sake of actually testing, tried to set just one filter and apply it, should be able to see that the button and functionality is not there.
.
 
+1 This has been broken since beta and makes it impossible to find a Squadron. Maybe that's why there seem to be 100 squadrons with one person in them.

sometimes that's on purpose :) Not every squadron's purpose is to be an army. Sometimes you need a small group for some precision activities and the membership is fluid as the missions change.

or it could be that it will take months before squadrons really form up into what they intend to be due to low player activity. This is a social feature that should have launched with the game, or at least with Wings.
 
Tbh I would never search a clan/squadran just by filtering an in game list for tags...

The Dangerous Groups & Squadrons forum is the perfect place to look for the right squadron IMHO.
 
Tbh I would never search a clan/squadran just by filtering an in game list for tags...

The Dangerous Groups & Squadrons forum is the perfect place to look for the right squadron IMHO.
.
For us who spend a lot of time here: probably, yes. But always keep in mind, there's rarely a game where more than 10% of the player base ever turn up at the forums and for most big games, less than 5% of all players ever (in the meaning of "just once") visit the forum. Regulars are even less.
.
So it you think that people use out-of-game sources to find a squadron, then why implement those filters? According to that idea, they don't get used. And why implement filters but then forget to add the "Ok" button?
.
Further questions could be: why force the squadron leader to decide Empire or something else and even which minor faction you connect to, but then provide no option to search for a squadron based on that?
.
Either you think that people use such filters. Then implement them right and check that they work. Or you think that people would all find their squadron over out-of-game sources. Which actually is unlikely. In that case, don't ever waste any effort on a filters page. But implementing a fake-filters-page, which shows which filters would be implemented, but does not actually work, is just not that great work.
.
 
Back
Top Bottom