General > Discussion

UI Adjustments: Battlescape

<< < (5/5)

Borsti67:
I vote for right clicks also. ;)
(And double clicks are sh*t!)

Could reduce the number of icons whilst being intuitive (IMHO):
Weapon: Left click = fire, right = reload
Fire Mode: Left click = set fire mode, right = set FM for reaction fire
...

bayo:

--- Quote ---Fire Mode: Left click = set fire mode, right = set FM for reaction fire
--- End quote ---
IMO the RF and reservation is the thing need the bigger rework. I dont play a lot, but ATM i dont understand all this things... then there is a problem.

About http://i52.tinypic.com/nwet0w.jpg
* The firemode popup is not at a very good position, or the design do not help to see it at the right position.


--- Quote ---7. possible but we are not working on the soldiers bar yet.  
EDIT: correction i didnt see any double click Callback functions so onlyleft/middle/right, over and wheel.
--- End quote ---
Yes, we dont feature it, then we use it nowhere, then we should not use it somewhere.


--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---* I dont see the point of changing the shoot task with that. I mean spliting user action 1) select the fire mode and 2) shot something. We can talk about that only point in a separate thead cause it evilly affect the GUI result.

--- End quote ---
Well, firing and selecting a fire mode are not the same thing. I don't want to have to re-select a fire mode every time I shoot. The only reason I can see to force the extra click is to prevent players from accidentally using the wrong firing mode, but it's not a sufficient reason for me.
--- End quote ---
In my self experience, I mostly never use the same firemode, it depend a lot of the TU and movment i do. Then i dont see how separating this 2 aspects can't be a mess for players.
What we mean by "firemode" is not a weapon status but mostly the way the soldier will use the weapon (a compromise between accuracy and number of bullets we shoot). I think we can talk about that if we only separate weapon status from our "firemode" list (and maybe only in the case of changing weapon status will use some TU (cause it became an important action), or if our firemode list became very big), or if most of player dont play like i said.
In the case of a gameplay for shoting like Jagged Alliance or Fallout, i think it is good too (i mean accuracy became an independent parameter). We can change the gameplay, but it is out of my scope.

mor2:

--- Quote from: bayo on October 22, 2010, 08:03:52 pm ---About http://i52.tinypic.com/nwet0w.jpg
* The firemode popup is not at a very good position, or the design do not help to see it at the right position.
--- End quote ---
its because i left space for a bottom and side bars, beside that its in perfect position, the text is out of the way and after clicking you move right to the selection.



--- Quote from: bayo on October 22, 2010, 08:03:52 pm ---What we mean by "firemode" is not a weapon status but mostly the way the soldier will use the weapon (a compromise between accuracy and number of bullets we shoot). I think we can talk about that if we only separate weapon status from our "firemode" list (and maybe only in the case of changing weapon status will use some TU (cause it became an important action), or if our firemode list became very big), or if most of player dont play like i said.
In the case of a gameplay for shoting like Jagged Alliance or Fallout, i think it is good too (i mean accuracy became an independent parameter). We can change the gameplay, but it is out of my scope.
--- End quote ---
i am not sure what you mean, can you sum up what you suggest that we do?



--- Quote from: bayo on October 22, 2010, 08:03:52 pm ---IMO the RF and reservation is the thing need the bigger rework. I dont play a lot, but ATM i dont understand all this things... then there is a problem.
--- End quote ---
i know what you want UI guy, the problem is that you dont know how much i dont want to give it to you ;D
my guess that you want to leave every as is with little adjustments to the  RF/stance reservation, well here it is BUT some other changes are still include :P

H-Hour:
Well, this has gotten as out of control as the other thread now. Thank you mor2 for continuing to raise new issues before we resolved the old ones, even after I asked you not to.

If I thought this was going in a productive direction I would just moderate the posts, but it seems that bayo and I do not really share much common ground on how the UI ought to function. I don't think our back and forth is getting anywhere that bayo couldn't get to himself. Unless other devs want to get involved in the decision-making process, I think my involvement will only cause more headaches for bayo and he's the one doing all the work.

I will lock this thread but bayo or another moderator is welcome to reopen it if there is something here they want to follow.

bayo:

--- Quote ---i am not sure what you mean, can you sum up what you suggest that we do?
--- End quote ---
I only argued why i think the proposed task for firing is not better, i can draw an image. But i dont suggest anything.

Anyway, as i already said many time, i can be wrong, It is only human thinking, and we dont have cheep way to tests solutions.

BTW the battlescape screen is the only one window everybody can easily hack, cause we can parameter the name of the window with a cvar.
* For little changes, it is easy to test it, and you dont break the current screens, cause you work on another things
* For big changes, like this firemode selection, it need to rework the protocol between (server-)client-gui, i think we can work on that, but it must aim a more generic way (i think Duke already said is somewhere). I mean, we (at least me) can help people to work on this solutions, but i dont think we will fully implement the solution.

I am not the only one working on the GUI, geever usually work more than me. Then you can find people with knowledge to do some job.


--- Quote ---I will lock this thread
--- End quote ---
hoo... oups

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page