Doing Port Forwarding in RouterOS ( https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:IP/Firewall/NAT#Port_mapping.2Fforwarding ) is IMO unfortunately too complicated 
There rather should be a new menu entry for defining the port forwardings, as is industry standard in most router GUI interfaces.
Here’s an example on how it’s done in Ubiquiti routers (it’s firewall sits on top of iptables, as is the case also with Mikrotik’s FW):
Quick Set should probably get some simple interface for port forwarding, so that its users don’t have to go elsewhere for this relatively common thing.
But otherwise I don’t see any need for it. If you add rules manually in WinBox/WebFig, then there’s more fields than in your screenshot, but it’s not that difficult to find the right ones.
The default rules already provide the basis for port forwarding (in the forward filter rules).
If port forwarding is desired then one simply makes the correct destination nat rule.
This is not a consumer router for the best buy crowd (plugNplay lead by the nose).
The main difficulty is that people want, for some strange reason, to access the port forwarded device from behind the router but using the routers WANIP address (or dyndns url/name).
(vice directly accessing the server via its LANIP address).
So the only thing that needs to change IMHO is perhaps a bit more detail in the destination nat wiki section or in the new format, to explain in perhaps a bit more detail on destination nat and source naty for static and dynamic WANIPs and practical examples.
If you want to be spoon fed then this is not the right OS,
They only think that they should have is the “both” (TCP&UDP) instead of using 2 rules
I see nothing wrong with an option for both TCP and UDP on the pull-down which would auto generate two rules.
The savings is not in the number of rules its simply a savings in one less copy and paste or two rules from scratch.
Boils down to… amongst other priorities and development how does this one rank…to me Very Low!
If you want edgemax approach buy edgemax
Exactly, if you want a edgemax, but an edgemax. If you want a D-Link, buy that.
It’s better for RouterOS to focus on small/medium-ISP and datacenter features.
An option to select “Both” for me is ambiguous- both what? TCP/UDP? Or maybe all protocols? (because TCP and UDP aren’t the only protocols in the internet and e.g. many places accidentally block IPSec by only caring about TCP/UDP).
However, being able to sect multiple protocols per rule will be nice (yet I’m sure not simple since under the hood you need multiple rules).
Personally I am against dumbing stuff down to meet the lowest intelligence level of a potential user. If it matters to you then learn it and master it. If it is too complicated buy a Netgear.
This request IMHO has some good in it. Firewall without any grouping or tree-like structure gets really messy really quickly. Being able to limit number of rules visible will be a nice addition. However, I think a better solution for a problem of too many rules will be an ability to group them or even automatically create a tree view based on jumps to custom chains.
You can simplify dstnat rules already by grouping ports for the same server IP (assuming same protocol).
Dont think much effort should be put here as there are limited resources and much higher priorities…
It’s interesting idea, only problem is, you can jump to same chain from multiple places, so simple branching would not be possible.
There was similar request recently: Feature request: rules groups or rules colors in WinBox
Let’s say you could choose custom background color for each chain, that could work well. It would be immediatelly clear what rules belong together. Of course you can order chains one after another (and not mix rules from different chains) and it’s not bad either. But different background color would make it even more apparent.
And sure, there are more important things, but small improvents like this are useful too, and it’s not like it would be any difficult to add.
@anav: It’s not about your twenty rules total (just a guess), think big, imagine firewall for large network where you need hundereds of rules.
I don’t need that feature destination nat rule is fine … mt is no enduser device like unifi …(even there much things are complicated to configure)
Br
Mark
^ This.
What you are discussing here already exists in the MikroTik android app. This is why it was made.