Predictions visualization

[Kerensky]

Here I really want to hear an opinion from as many people as possible. The idea behind the scheme we use now is that we don't show casualties, we show damage. In other words, we don't show how bad things are, but how good they are. Left number is damage done by the player, the more the number - the better. Right number is damage done by the opponent, and the bigger the number - the worse. So, what do you guys think? Which approach is more intuitive, especially for players who don't remember exactly how PG did this?

To which I said:
Sorry, this scheme is just too backwards. Even speaking in non-Panzer General terms, home team comes first, agreed?. In our Western society, we read left to right, yes?. Therefore, the status of my unit, or something that will affect the status of my unit should appear first (on the left), while something that effects the status of my opponent or enemy has to come second (on the right).
Although upon re-reading exactly what you wrote, my argument actually supports what you are saying, because you are talking about damage done TO player, then damage done TO enemy.
Personally, I would still prefer the standard Panzer General way of damage taken information, not damage done information.
If you are adamant about keeping it in terms of damage DONE instead of damage TAKEN, then I would suggest, once again, Panzer General 2's answer. When you mouse over an enemy unit, you get the little nationality flags showing up. You see the little flag, and under the flag is a number. That number means 'expected casualties' If you organize it your unit left, enemy right, it's showing damage taken. If you organize it your unit right, enemy left, you are organizing in priority of 'damage done'.

Either way it's the same thing, just the priority changes, and if you add a little flag icon next to the number, there shouldn't be any confusion either way you pick.

Basically, add a little flag to designate which number belongs to which side, and it shouldn't matter anymore.


Anyone else have an opinion to weigh in on this topic?

[adherbal]

My belief is pretty solid that "damage" makes more sense than "casualties". Suppose we listed a whole list of stats for both units:

Code: Select all

Attack:       10 vs 8
Defense:      5  vs 3
Entrenchment: 0  vs 2
Leader bonus: 2  vs 0
...
Casualties:   2  vs 8

In (almost?) every stat higher = better, and yet for the most critical value it would be reversed? Suppose you colour code them: green is good, red is good - for casualties it would be reversed? So switching the numbers and calling it something like "damage" is more consistant.

The Commander series also displays "damage" instead of casualties, so sticking to the PG approach (which IMO has no strong arguement) would also confuse some players - I was one of them.

In the end all changes will take some getting used to for some players, but "because that's how PG did it" should never be a valid arguement on its own. IMO the left/right click interface is the same story. For our gameplay it's a superior system. If the game was designed from ground up and PG had not existed it would not even have been an arguement.

[boredatwork]

My belief is pretty solid that "damage" makes more sense than "casualties". Suppose we listed a whole list of stats for both units:

You left out the most relavent "stat" - current strength

I will have to agree with Karensky on this one - IMO it's not "because PG did it like this." To me the PG method is the most intuitive because it's easy to compare stats in the same "column" to figure out a third - I have a strength 10 unit and suffer 2 casualties I'll be left with a strength 8 unit. Your way is more convoluted because it involves cross column checking - If I have a str 10 unit I need to consult the enemy's column to figure out how much damage he'll do so I can figure out what my strength will be at the end of combat?

Code: Select all

Strength: 10 vs 8
Casualties:   2  vs 8
------------------------
After Combat: 8 vs 0

Code: Select all

Strength: 10 vs 8
Damage:   8  vs 2
------------------------
After Combat: 8 vs 0

Sorry, this scheme is just too backwards. Even speaking in non-Panzer General terms, home team comes first, agreed?.

This on the otherhand I'm not too fussy about. In hockey the home team is listed second. In baseball the home team bats last.

What I will agree on is it is important that whatever side is chosen that it remains **consistant**. Kerensky posted a screen shot of a log a few weeks ago which I found confusing because you went back and forth - the defensive artillery because it was attacking was on the left against his infantry on the right - the next part of the same log had his attacking infantry on the left and the enemy's defending infantry on the right.

To me it would make much more sense to have the friendly units always on the same side regardless if they're attacking, defending, or conducting defensive fire.

[Kerensky]

Shows how much I know about sports.

Well said though, I especially agree with

I will have to agree with Karensky on this one - IMO it's not "because PG did it like this." To me the PG method is the most intuitive because it's easy to compare stats in the same "column" to figure out a third - I have a strength 10 unit and suffer 2 casualties I'll be left with a strength 8 unit. Your way is more convoluted because it involves cross column checking - If I have a str 10 unit I need to consult the enemy's column to figure out how much damage he'll do so I can figure out what my strength will be at the end of combat?

The image he's mentioning, for anyone curious:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6059/combatlog.jpg

[Rudankort]

I wanted to clarify one point in the context of this discussion: I know that PG2 showed small flags next to combat prediction numbers, and the reason why I'm not sure it is an optimal solution is:
- If you see the flags, you still don't know if the number is damage or losses
- Sometimes, especially when minor nations are involved, it is not immediately clear which flag corresponds to which side. This could be solved by using an "axis" and "allied" symbol instead of flags, like PG for 3DO did, but this would not solve the first problem

So, ideally we should find some solution where the meaning of the numbers is obvious and you don't need flags etc. to clarify it. We tried to achieve this by color-coding the numbers (green=good, red=bad), and we also color-coded the combat itself. The center of the cross-hair can have 5 colors, from red (danger, risky combat) to green (no danger, easy victory).

Perhaps we can find some other ideas how to make the estimation clear. For example, migrate to damage idea, but show negative numbers and show each number on the corresponding unit. Any creative ideas on this are welcome.

[boredatwork]

Perhaps we can find some other ideas how to make the estimation clear. For example, migrate to damage idea, but show negative numbers and show each number on the corresponding unit. Any creative ideas on this are welcome.

I was going to do a mockup to that effect but as you've already stated it I think this is the best was to go - a negative number (including "-0") directly over top of the appropriate units to make it easy to quickly calculate the "after" results.

[Rudankort]

Wanted to give a quick update on prediction visualization. We are a bit reluctant to distribute prediction between attacker and defender hexes, because in some cases these units are several hexes apart (e. g. ships), and so it may not be convenient to move your eyes to see both numbers. When you plan an attack, most likely you are looking at the target unit, so showing prediction there makes more sense. Here is our current idea how to show prediction (big red crosshair indicates possible attack targets, small crosshair and numbers inside show prediction):



Comments welcome.

[Kerensky]

I'll have words on this later, but for starters I will say something about the red circle just doesn't seem.... right. Maybe because it's crosshairs that are lopsided?

[Kerensky]

No one else had anything to say? Well I don't have much to add, but I still agree with my initial sentiment.

It just doesn't look right, but I can't exactly figure out why. Could be the color, could be the fact the symbol is a lopsided crosshair, could be the negative signs, or maybe it's a combination of all of them. I would feel a lot more comfortable making judgments on this after we see what combat animations actually look like, so we can find something that will compliment that visual.

[Rudankort]

Maybe it will help if we replace that elliptic crosshair with a perfect circle?