Slitherine

Hello All!

New build has arrived. As usual, any feedback is very much appreciated, but in particular I'm interested in your opinion on the following points.

- New mouse interface is in place. For those of you who have played previous versions it will likely be quite inconvenient. What do you think of this? Is this a change to good or bad?

- Is it convenient to drag the map with the mouse? Anything we could improve here?

- We've added new icons for unit stats. What do you think of them? Which icons are good? Which are bad? What would be good to use instead? Any ideas are welcome.

- Strategic map is working now, but it is a very early version. What do you think of it? Is the terrain clear in this scale? How shall we indicate units on it - flags as now, stylized unit class icons, nato symbols? What other useful information can we show here?

- Same questions about the minimap. It does not show much yet, what would be the most important to show here?

Thanks!

- New mouse interface is in place. For those of you who have played previous versions it will likely be quite inconvenient. What do you think of this? Is this a change to good or bad?

Haven't really noticed any decrease in functionality thus far.

- Is it convenient to drag the map with the mouse? Anything we could improve here?

Scrolling the map by moving the mouse to the map edges might be good enough.

- We've added new icons for unit stats. What do you think of them? Which icons are good? Which are bad? What would be good to use instead? Any ideas are welcome.

The initiative, attack and defense icons are not intuitive.

Is there a reason why icons for attack or defence need to be more complicated than a soldier, tank or plane with a crossair/shield on it? Is there something you don't like about the icons from PG games?

- Strategic map is working now, but it is a very early version. What do you think of it? Is the terrain clear in this scale? How shall we indicate units on it - flags as now, stylized unit class icons, nato symbols? What other useful information can we show here?

Perhaps some thicker yellow hexsides for objective hexes. I'd say the current thin lines might blend in with terrain like desert or rough terrain, any non-green, blue or white terrain type.

If I may suggest something, having the strategic map appear after zooming out twice with the mousewheel would be really convenient.

- Same questions about the minimap. It does not show much yet, what would be the most important to show here?

Perhaps it shouldn't automatically adjust to the size of the map as compared to the total possible map size, but the map should always fill up the entire minimap window. At the current scale, it's very difficult to spot terrain particulars for smaller maps. Not that it matters much as you can quickly scroll around the map, but still, the minimap could be a bit more functional if the map would take up the entire window.

Rudankort wrote:For those of you who have played previous versions it will likely be quite inconvenient.

Shoot. Me. Now.

boredatwork wrote:Shoot. Me. Now.

I thought buying a new unit was bugged, I was all "wtf why can't I place this dude" Then ohhhhh yea.

By the way, the bridge engineer crash is still pretty serious and immediately evident. 17 and 17a. Do you (Rudankort) really never crash because of bridge engineers?

Some initial thoughts:
New mouse interface:
Still getting used to it, so I can't say it's 'wrong' just yet. However there are a few issues I have with it.
To me, the point of the interface is Left Click = Select. Right Click = Act. Am I wrong to think that?
So let's go through the steps to buy a new unit. Left click purchase button. Left click all over the place to find type of unit, then to find your exact unit, and finally left click again on the purchase button. But then.. right click to place on the map? Maybe that's just me still getting used to the system, but that final step alternation part really bothers me. I mean, you don't right click on the supply button, or the sleep button, right?

I would prefer to have Left Click do everything except the following:
Move units.
Fire units.
Undeploy units.

Dragging the map:
I guess it's a good thing, slightly redundant in my opinion, but there is one issue that drives me insane. Unless my mouse is completely motionless, the game no longer accepts my left click commands. Allow me to illustrate.

My mouse begins at position 1.
I move to to position 2 and attempt to select a unit.
I move my mouse to position 3 and then attempt to move the unit to that location.

Previously, I could do this in one fluid motion. Currently, I have to move from 1 to 2, come to a dead stop, wait the split second for the game to recognize zero mouse movement, then grab my unit and continue. It could just be my play style, but this really annoys me, and in my opinion isn't worth losing to gain the ability to drag the map. Right clicking is great, I can still slide my mouse as I right click and units move and fire, but left click feels very clunky now, because the new requirement to wait until you have released your mouse button from depression before you are allowed to move the mouse. If you don't meet the new wait requirement, you drag the map instead of making your selection.

New icons:
I agree with comradep for the most part.
Compare

to


What I notice: Information for Pg2 layout is more prominent and centrally located. The unit stats (Arguable the most important factor to consider when choosing between units) is centrally located in large numbers. However Pg2 requires a scroll bar to show the entire unit list, which PzC does better because there is so much space. However I think it's too much space. With the all eqp cheat, you can't even fill the entire screen with armor choices, you have room to spare. From PzIA to Maus, it's 6 tanks by 4 tanks + 2 in the last row. I'm pretty sure in 1945 when the Maus is available, the PzIA is going to not be available for purchase. So I would prefer something that looks more like:


Blue lines would be scroll bars.

As for the icons themselves:
1. Footprints are misleading. Yes it means movement, but the UI still doesn't show type of movement, which irritates me. The Footprint '3' of an infantry unit is a different movement type from the Footprint '8' the Open Blitz transport has, but they are the same looking footprint.
2. Dollar sign... I prefer a 'coin' because other nations use £ or ¥ or €. And prestige acts like money, but it isn't actually money, so a money-ish icon like a generic coin is better than a standard monetary symbol.
3. Initiative. I see daggers I think close combat, or melee combat. It's hard to turn the idea of 'initiative' into an image, but I don't think daggers is the way to do it. Arrows is better (Not bow and arrow type arrows, Pg2 arrows).
4. All the types of attack and defense values. Here I strongly agree with comradep. Little dot, big dot, little wings under the crosshair(I assume they're wings, they are so tiny) and ~ under crosshair just makes me go ???
There are lots of soft targets that are large, and there are hard targets that are small.

Strategic map:

Looks like a good start. I would say it would be nice to see type of unit as a glance, for example:

You can see who are the infantry units, who is the tank, and pretend the MG units are AT units.
Also, would be good to be able to see active/inactive units. Simple greying out of the icons to show inactive units.

Mini map:
I reserve comment for now.

Purchase screen is unfinished yet.

New mouse interface:
Still getting used to it, so I can't say it's 'wrong' just yet. However there are a few issues I have with it.
To me, the point of the interface is Left Click = Select. Right Click = Act. Am I wrong to think that?
So let's go through the steps to buy a new unit. Left click purchase button. Left click all over the place to find type of unit, then to find your exact unit, and finally left click again on the purchase button. But then.. right click to place on the map? Maybe that's just me still getting used to the system, but that final step alternation part really bothers me. I mean, you don't right click on the supply button, or the sleep button, right?

I would prefer to have Left Click do everything except the following:
Move units.
Fire units.
Undeploy units.

I agree that's a bit confusing. IIRC in BBC BA they also use right-click to deploy airstrikes etc, which took some time to get used to.

Perhaps all UI commands should stick to left-click "confirm" and right-click "cancel". While left-click "select" and right-click "action" is the scheme for unit controls.

Kerensky wrote:By the way, the bridge engineer crash is still pretty serious and immediately evident. 17 and 17a. Do you (Rudankort) really never crash because of bridge engineers?

Nope, I've never seen this one. I wonder if it is really related to the bridging ability? Can you try to remove "beng" trait from Data/equipment.pzdat file and see if the issue still happens? (If you are not sure how to remove that trait, I could send you modified file.)

Kerensky wrote: I would prefer to have Left Click do everything except the following:
Move units.
Fire units.
Undeploy units.

I tend to agree.

Kerensky wrote: Right clicking is great, I can still slide my mouse as I right click and units move and fire, but left click feels very clunky now, because the new requirement to wait until you have released your mouse button from depression before you are allowed to move the mouse. If you don't meet the new wait requirement, you drag the map instead of making your selection.

There is certain threshold which must be passed before the game starts treating mouse move as dragging the map. Right now it is 5 pixels. Judging by your description, in your case this threshold is not big enough. In fact, scrolling makes sense to reveal some new hexes, so useful scroll will be ~half-hex average. With this point in mind, probably it is safe to increase the dragging threshold to something like 10-20 pixels.

Kerensky wrote:New icons:
What I notice: Information for Pg2 layout is more prominent and centrally located. The unit stats (Arguable the most important factor to consider when choosing between units) is centrally located in large numbers. However Pg2 requires a scroll bar to show the entire unit list, which PzC does better because there is so much space. However I think it's too much space. With the all eqp cheat, you can't even fill the entire screen with armor choices, you have room to spare. From PzIA to Maus, it's 6 tanks by 4 tanks + 2 in the last row. I'm pretty sure in 1945 when the Maus is available, the PzIA is going to not be available for purchase. So I would prefer something that looks more like:
<skip>

You have got a large screen. But on smaller screens (and we support all screens up to 800x600) PzC purchase screen will look very close to what you've shown (2-3 columns of units, then the stats). Still, we have a lot of white spaces around the icons, and so might be able to make bigger ones which will be easier for the eyes.

Layout of purchase screen attempts to follow the flow of actions: you start with filters which limit your selection (flags, classes, in come respect prestige and slots as well), then you select your unit, then you check its stats, then you confirm purchase. So, the elements involved in this process are ordered left to right and top to bottom.

Kerensky wrote: As for the icons themselves:
1. Footprints are misleading. Yes it means movement, but the UI still doesn't show type of movement, which irritates me. The Footprint '3' of an infantry unit is a different movement type from the Footprint '8' the Open Blitz transport has, but they are the same looking footprint.

So, what do you suggest to use instead?

Kerensky wrote: 2. Dollar sign... I prefer a 'coin' because other nations use £ or ¥ or €. And prestige acts like money, but it isn't actually money, so a money-ish icon like a generic coin is better than a standard monetary symbol.

You might be right on that, but this icon is consistent with "Purchase" button, so do you suggest to change that as well?

Kerensky wrote: 3. Initiative. I see daggers I think close combat, or melee combat. It's hard to turn the idea of 'initiative' into an image, but I don't think daggers is the way to do it. Arrows is better (Not bow and arrow type arrows, Pg2 arrows).

Yes, initiative is difficult, and I doubt PG2 icons was more clear. To a person new to the game two arrows will mean anything but what this stat really means. Our idea was to show two swords of different length (longer sword strikes first , which may not be perfect too. Let us try to brainstorm this one. How else could we try to represent initiative?

Kerensky wrote: 4. All the types of attack and defense values. Here I strongly agree with comradep. Little dot, big dot, little wings under the crosshair(I assume they're wings, they are so tiny) and ~ under crosshair just makes me go ???
There are lots of soft targets that are large, and there are hard targets that are small.

comradep wrote: Is there a reason why icons for attack or defence need to be more complicated than a soldier, tank or plane with a crossair/shield on it? Is there something you don't like about the icons from PG games?

Before going the conventional path we wanted to try something new and see what people think of it, but judgung by the reaction, our experiment was not successful.

2All: any alternative opinions on this point?

comradep wrote:Haven't really noticed any decrease in functionality thus far.

Indeed, there is nothing which you can do now, which you could not do before. The idea behind this change is to separate selection from action, so that you never do action by mistake when you actually want to select a unit.

comradep wrote: Scrolling the map by moving the mouse to the map edges might be good enough.

Old scrolling model will of course remain as well. I expect that "the old way" will be more convenient to scroll bigger distances, while "new model" will be better to scroll just a little bit, perhaps a couple of hexes in some direction.

comradep wrote: Perhaps some thicker yellow hexsides for objective hexes. I'd say the current thin lines might blend in with terrain like desert or rough terrain, any non-green, blue or white terrain type.

Yes, I agree that objectives are important and must be marked more clearly.

comradep wrote: If I may suggest something, having the strategic map appear after zooming out twice with the mousewheel would be really convenient.

I thought it might be confusing to mix these two modes, because in small map scale you can actually play (select units, move, attack) while on strategic map you can only view the battlefield and plan your actions.

comradep wrote: Perhaps it shouldn't automatically adjust to the size of the map as compared to the total possible map size, but the map should always fill up the entire minimap window. At the current scale, it's very difficult to spot terrain particulars for smaller maps. Not that it matters much as you can quickly scroll around the map, but still, the minimap could be a bit more functional if the map would take up the entire window.

Yeah, the minimap might be easier to view this way, but then we need some controls to scroll it I guess? Or do you suggest to just stretch it to fill all minimap area?

Kerensky wrote:Strategic map:

Looks like a good start. I would say it would be nice to see type of unit as a glance, for example:

You can see who are the infantry units, who is the tank, and pretend the MG units are AT units.
Also, would be good to be able to see active/inactive units. Simple greying out of the icons to show inactive units.

I guess, some blinking/animations will be useful on the strategic map too.

About the units, I like the idea of small labels to indicate unit's type. Or shall it be name?

My own preference is also to use small stylized icons for units, looks like we agree on this one. Any more opinions on this?

Rudankort wrote: Nope, I've never seen this one. I wonder if it is really related to the bridging ability? Can you try to remove "beng" trait from Data/equipment.pzdat file and see if the issue still happens? (If you are not sure how to remove that trait, I could send you modified file.)

I left a suggestion for you to test in the main Bug Thread, did you see that?

Also, I assume this is what you mean. I changed

5 Bruckenpioniere 0 210 5 0 2 2 0 1 5 1 -1 1 9 11 0 0 0 Bruckenpioniere.png 5.4.1939 1.1.1946 11 beng close

to

5 Bruckenpioniere 0 210 5 0 2 2 0 1 5 1 -1 1 9 11 0 0 0 Bruckenpioniere.png 5.4.1939 1.1.1946 11 close

After I did that, I restarted. Soon as my computer was back up and running, I launched the PzC, started France scenario, moused over the bridge engineer, and crashed. Like clockwork.

Rudankort wrote: Layout of purchase screen attempts to follow the flow of actions: you start with filters which limit your selection (flags, classes, in come respect prestige and slots as well), then you select your unit, then you check its stats, then you confirm purchase. So, the elements involved in this process are ordered left to right and top to bottom.

That makes good sense, my only suggestion is that checking the stats needs to have stronger priority and more significant presence on the purchase screen. Larger font and larger icons and a larger % of the screen dedicated to displaying stats on any resolution.

Rudankort wrote: So, what do you suggest to use instead?

Footprints is fine, for walking infantry movement. For trucks or similar recon vehicles, something like this (but with less emphasis on the cab and more emphasis on the wheels)

Tanks and treaded vehicles get.
But turned to profile.
ATV could be

But rotated to profile.
And so on. As usual, I also have no problem with the Pg2 approach. Take your image place it inside of an arrow.

Rudankort wrote: You might be right on that, but this icon is consistent with "Purchase" button, so do you suggest to change that as well?

Absolutely. 'Requisition' strikes me as a excellent replacement.

Rudankort wrote:Yes, initiative is difficult, and I doubt PG2 icons was more clear. To a person new to the game two arrows will mean anything but what this stat really means. Our idea was to show two swords of different length (longer sword strikes first , which may not be perfect too. Let us try to brainstorm this one. How else could we try to represent initiative?

It's late, but I'll give this serious thought when I have time, and it would also be good to hear suggestions from others as well.

Rudankort wrote:About the units, I like the idea of small labels to indicate unit's type. Or shall it be name?

My own preference is also to use small stylized icons for units, looks like we agree on this one. Any more opinions on this?

I feel that name is unnecessary, and in a game like Panzer Corp, could get very crowded and messy. Leave it at a generic icon, and perhaps try to fit the nationality flag if still possible, and leave it at that.

I thought it might be confusing to mix these two modes, because in small map scale you can actually play (select units, move, attack) while on strategic map you can only view the battlefield and plan your actions.

Personally, I only "play" in the standard view, I only zoom out to get an overview, I don't select units, so to me zoom out once: zoomed out map, zoom out twice: strategic map would be a logical transition. Opinions might differ greatly, though.

Yeah, the minimap might be easier to view this way, but then we need some controls to scroll it I guess? Or do you suggest to just stretch it to fill all minimap area?

Preferably not stretch it, just fill the minimap area with a higher resolution depiction of the main map. Stretching would just create an even bigger blur than the current minimap.

Rudankort wrote:

Kerensky wrote: I would prefer to have Left Click do everything except the following:
Move units.
Fire units.
Undeploy units.

I tend to agree.

If you need it, I'll make a list of every single action that is executed by left clicks and right clicks, and then we can sort which should be assigned to what button. If just the three examples I mentioned are it though, then that'll suffice.

Rudankort wrote: There is certain threshold which must be passed before the game starts treating mouse move as dragging the map. Right now it is 5 pixels. Judging by your description, in your case this threshold is not big enough. In fact, scrolling makes sense to reveal some new hexes, so useful scroll will be ~half-hex average. With this point in mind, probably it is safe to increase the dragging threshold to something like 10-20 pixels.

I would very much like an increased threshold, I hate gabbing the map when I'm actually trying to grab a unit on the fly.
Some people might disagree, so at the very least a setting in the options menu for 'map grab threshold' would be prefect.

My initial thoughts:

- New mouse interface is in place. For those of you who have played previous versions it will likely be quite inconvenient. What do you think of this? Is this a change to good or bad?

I agree with the other posters: left-click seems more natural for actions and selections which right-click feels natural for options. I guess I prefer the old way although the current iteration is usable. I could be talked into this new system since it does seem to work around some selection issues.

- Is it convenient to drag the map with the mouse? Anything we could improve here?

To me this is a huge plus! Some of the other posters suggested that moving near the map edges could be sufficient, but for me, when I move near the map edges, the map starts scrolling so fast that I overshoot my destination. The edge scrolling just feels too out-of-control. I LOVE being able to drag the map! Perhaps a little improvement could be made by caching the map squares offscreen so they do not flicker when the drag action reveals them onscreen. Also, it appears that your mouse listeners need a little refining: if I drag too fast and mouse over the control panel or outside the game entirely, I'm finding that the mouseUp event is not getting caught, resulting in the map "sticking" to the mouse cursor until I click on the map again to reset the drag listeners. (then again, I am running this beta on Windows 7 in a parallels VM so maybe the VM window is causing the mouse problem)

- We've added new icons for unit stats. What do you think of them? Which icons are good? Which are bad? What would be good to use instead? Any ideas are welcome.

Very nice. Fog of war is also looks very nice!

- Strategic map is working now, but it is a very early version. What do you think of it? Is the terrain clear in this scale? How shall we indicate units on it - flags as now, stylized unit class icons, nato symbols? What other useful information can we show here?

Very nice as well. I like the flags since I was used to that in Panzer General but I am interested in seeing any alternatives you have.

- Same questions about the minimap. It does not show much yet, what would be the most important to show here?

Very nicely done with a couple of points. First, I noticed some posters say it should fill the little minimap frame but you would have to constantly change the size of that frame depending on the dimensions of the current map, so having it not fill the frame makes sense to me. Second, the minimap needs to have a viewport rectangle that represents the position of the current view with respect to the overall minimap. A simple rectangle would be fine that updates as the map is scrolled or dragged around the screen. Is this addition planned?