Need help understanding decline reason.

ByMomox | MomoxStudios.Netat 6th of November 2017 14:56:08

Once again, totally with you, kinda told them the same, gonna speak for them again: "These Scripts were made long time ago, since then our standards changed, sth like this would no longer be accepted today"

That's like cleaning up, but leaving shit on the floor because its old. This should not matter, if the mods really are trying to improve the standards, then disable the scripts that don't meet them.

By<CODE BLUE>at 6th of November 2017 15:00:44

That's like cleaning up, but leaving shit on the floor because its old. This should not matter, if the mods really are trying to improve the standards, then disable the scripts that don't meet them.

I understand why the mods would say that but yeah I suppose you could also have that counter argument, the way I see it is that it's a method of gate keeping from here on out. That's not really applicable to OP's denial but I think you know that and were raising a separate point.

To have a professional marketplace, firstly is to have a certain consistency when accepting scripts.

Nobel's script's UI has been denied due to dated UI, yet I see so many script with worse design being quite popular.

In my opinion it is sensible to deny script based on performance and security, but when it comes to UI and design it should be up to the customers, not mod.

So basically in my opinion UI's should be regulated like this:

Standard Dframe's should be denied instantly. MOTD's and any sort of active vgui which is used quite a lot must look good. Menu's like configs (which you rarely use) do not have to be eye candy, however should also not cause cancer.

I fail to see how a UI with boxes inside of boxes, inconsistent padding, unnecessary bold text, erratic capitalization, and absolutely bloated SpawnIcons is at all acceptable for a full on credit store.

I'm totally with CODE BLUE about this, we always speak of designs because they must be proper & professional for the website, but currently it's not the case on the marketplace. It's like who cares about a beautiful design or a "standard" one if the point of the addon was not for the design? We must differentiate addons which are here for the features provided or for a pure design. Of course the designs don't have to be bad wwith odd spacings and shit, but I mean we don't care about UI if it's not the main point of the script. I'm with mods about F4 menus, HUDs, LS or things like this because they are made for having a proper UI - in the other side, there is a lot of scripts which are for adding some features in-game (admin tools, better experience,...) and not for being beautiful.

I should understand all of this when the old scripts with useless features AND useless designs (which have nothing which deserve money in 2017-almost 2018) will be disabled. It looks like Nordahl scripts were disabled because they were old, poorly made, always the same designs & not so much features. Without having something against Crap-Head (because I clarly know I am not a good example in terms of design and I intend to redo them all), the scripts should be disabled if they don't meet the requirements. Either the design should not be considered like the heart of the script when it's not the point of it, either we make a deadline for remaking all old scripts which don't meet the current requirements -> everything or nothing but the "it was when our requirements were not so rude" should not be valid for a professional marketplace, after some years the marketplace has progressed.

So the reason older scripts are not touched is because they were grandfathered in when I started pushing the harsher restrictions. Why should a script that was fine a year ago suddenly have to be disabled just because we're attempting to increase the standards? Plus we have over 4000 scripts that are located on the store (disabled/not disabled) that would have to be gone through and checked.

Ultimately would I like these scripts to update and meet the newer standards? Yes, I would. But I know it's not reasonable to suddenly drop that bomb on people and most would just outright disable their script. Plus what if they just decide not to do any further updates and this screws up the customer because they're no longer receiving updates whereas they would have received some before.

On the terms of enforcing better UI I believe if you're looking to sell a product you should put effort into ALL aspects of your product. Why should the customer get shafted on one portion of the script? It's better just not to include a UI by that point.

Nordahl was a unique case and was resolved as he was selling scripts that were the exact same but had one feature changed, his scripts were not really denied based on the UI but rather the issues they had (which would also be done for others).

If you look at the marketplace nowadays higher quality scripts have been accepted and are consistently coming through, so the standards are definitely working.

ByNookyavaat 6th of November 2017 21:10:12On the terms of enforcing better UI I believe if you're looking to sell a product you should put effort into ALL aspects of your product. Why should the customer get shafted on one portion of the script? It's better just not to include a UI by that point.

Paying for a UI you saw pictures of is hardly getting shafted?

And aww come on in this case the UI isn't that bad that I'd rather have the credit store with no UI.

From a customer's standpoint; there have been a few times I've purchased a script on here, and simply needed the functionality back when I was running servers. I absolutely hated the look and feel, but the functionality was all there. So on top of buying the script, I then had to take a day out of my time, to completely re-design the UI to be more modern and something that my users didn't complain "eww, it looks so bad".

I don't think we're being too harsh by asking a developer to utilize the paint function for UI controls and panels. In the end; all we're doing is helping the developer improve the script, which potentially makes them sell even more. We're not asking them to be the Picasso of UIs, we simply want them to take pride in their work and make it the best they can. That simple.

ByRichardat 6th of November 2017 22:05:48

From a customer's standpoint; there have been a few times I've purchased a script on here, and simply needed the functionality back when I was running servers. I absolutely hated the look and feel, but the functionality was all there.

Would you say this is something you could have gauged prior to purchasing it?

I don't think we're being too harsh by asking a developer to utilize the paint function for UI controls and panels. In the end; all we're doing is helping the developer improve the script, which potentially makes them sell even more.

That's a nice way of looking at it which I haven't really considered until now.

Most of this doesn't really seem very relevant to this specific case, OP has painted his panels etc.

Would you say this is something you could have gauged prior to purchasing it?

Of course. Would I have LIKED for both the functionality AND UI to both be there? Would have been great. But I decided the functionality was more important than the appearance, so that I'd rather take the time to update the UI myself.

But what makes it more of a pain is that:

1. Some people don't know a lot of Lua, and can't just go in and whip up their own UI. Therefore, they have to spend even more money submitting a job, potentially risk being scammed if it's a person who is looking for people like that (sad, but that's what has happened).

OR

1. If they do the UI, or pay to have it done, and the developer comes out with an update, it's not part of the updated script, you have to update if you want the new features, and go right back to customizing again. Or risk just not having the update.

Like I said, I don't think we're asking a whole lot. It doesn't have to look spectacular, but we want anyone selling scripts to be able to take that extra hour, and be able to present something they are going to be proud of, and keep the hassle down a bit for the customer. And if they sell more copies because people like the UI, then great, it's win-win.

Edit: The rejection of his script wasn't just the UI from what I'm seeing. There were also panels not being validated, throwing nil values, as well as a few sections where things were painted, causing FPS drops that didn't need to happen. And also adding coloring options to the config so users can at least change the basic colors instead of hunting through the code. Finally, it contained an entity that has Crap-Head's author info in it, and we wanted to ensure he had permission to use these. So the rejection of his script wasn't solely 'terrible UI'. We can take blame on that however because it wasn't specified much to him in the rejection reason.

You bought a script and was unhappy about the UI so decided to put in the extra day of work to improve it, you cannot blame the developer for that, if you were not happy with it then why purchase it.

By<CODE BLUE>at 7th of November 2017 13:44:16

You bought a script and was unhappy about the UI so decided to put in the extra day of work to improve it, you cannot blame the developer for that, if you were not happy with it then why purchase it.

But he never said that, nor was that implied...

Didn't mean to cause a riot, but thanks for the positive and... negative feedback, anyway like I said before it was recently denied again for some code issues, but I must agree that if the UI looks bad I should fix it as at the end of the day it should help me, hopefully. Thanks again.

Edit: I also agree with code blue that we aren't artists.