Commander GUI
schkorpio
I can mspaint Join Date: 2003-05-23 Member: 16635Members
I can mspaint Join Date: 2003-05-23 Member: 16635Members
<div class="IPBDescription">lets clean it up</div>here's a quick mockup of a cleaner interface
now when you click on a building, it gives you the options around the building - freeing up a significant part of the screen
i'v also made the middle part a lot smaller since there is hardly any information showing up
anyone else have some ideas?
<img src="http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/901/techtreeadvisor.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
now when you click on a building, it gives you the options around the building - freeing up a significant part of the screen
i'v also made the middle part a lot smaller since there is hardly any information showing up
anyone else have some ideas?
<img src="http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/901/techtreeadvisor.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Comments
We just need something easy to code and functional, When we go Beta that might be a more appropiate time in Mid to End Beta to review the technicality of coding smarter menus.
The current tech tree is not too hard to understand, its just difficult because buttons are missing and others dont have appropiate understandable icons, they are using place holders and a lot of the helper popups are currently uninformative. When all of this is cleared up it will be a lot easier to follow I assure you.
Keep the ideas comming. Good thread
Are the team sticking with the original interface then? Have you gotten in testers who only have a rough understanding of the game and placed them instantly in the command situation?
Has the team seen some of the possible ideas outlined in some of the threads here and considered changing the system at all?
Personally I think from a standing point that the tech tree is very complicated, as can be seen in some of the hierarchy mapping we have done in the General Forum. It is menu surfing unless you understand it's complexity, which therefore makes it simple to those who follow this game. Especially to those who make it and therefore no longer deem it to be complicated because they fully understand it.
The hud should not deviate away too much from the original NS1 hud. It was quite essential that everything was accessible away from bases & structures and are quickly accessible off screen via the grouping system. - Its does both squads & structures like in NS1.
There wants to be a commander training mode that they want to get in officialy this time around and hopefully they will.
The whole thing should be as easy to follow as any Command & Conquer games build menus, they are practically the same, even if still some people found even those games hard to follow at first, it will always be a learning curve. There is little you can do to to make these any more simpler when it comes to tech trees when you have
tried to keep is as simple as possible in the first place, its a complicated tesk being a commander and it wants to be as fulfilling as possible. make it too simple with too few technologies to unloack and its a boring job just ordering people around the map most of the time, a problem being address in NS2 this time to make it more interesting.
Of course to make it interesting you have to make it so there is an absolute reason to hold down multiple locations rather than fighting and defending one location. Defending these inmportant places makes for a more exciting play, adds more strategy, Of course there is a balance between <u>Interest</u> & <u>Complexity</u> that needs to be maintained.
I think all that needs to be done is to ensure the layout of the buttons in that 9 square grid is simplified.
You dont have to fully understand the actual tech tree its self, if you can just press obvious buttons that obviously unlock stuff and tell you what to do to enable them, the icons just need to be understandable, as many as possible at the front and that there are not too many sub menus, I think there are more than there need be at the moment and I think that not all need to be detached from the command center like they are now.
I can think of a couple of places where a sub menu can be dropped compleatly and a couple can be merged into one menu rather than lots of small ones everywhere.
I need to talk to him soon before he starts redoing the same layout with the new GUI system.
Radial menus are awesome for certain things, especially if there are only a few choices. Doors and small upgrades come to mind.
They are serviceable for complex things like the bajillion Armory upgrades as long as the bottom region lights up with info, hotkeys are easily seeable, etc when you hover over the puny icon. Hotkeys will still rule for the more advanced players.
For more global things that aren't located near the building (like scanner sweeps and medpacks) a more universal menu is preferred. Select the building (perhaps via control group hotkey) and a menu in the lower left should be available so you don't have to scroll to the building, do the radial, then scroll to where you want to deploy the action. Hotkeys help nullify this problem, but that's for pros who learn them. New players won't have them memorized and will have to scroll around to open then use the radial menu. =p
So.... have BOTH! Either that or create the global menu and only put universal things in there, then gray out what you can't use at this time. Kinda like the original NS1 menu.
Idea would be to move what we can over to the command station interface and also kill off the need to put somany things on hot keys.
Currently right click cancels an action, I asked already if right click when there is no action to cancel reverts your current selection back to the command station your are inside of where you would instantly access as many things as posible.
i have played NS for a long time, The best example I can give you that we could do to almost everything in a similar way would be on what we can do with the Observatory.
So what can we do with this?
Well we can instead of going to each obs binded to hot keys or not we can place an obs button on the global command interface.
If there are no observatories built this is dimmed out by default and the current tooltip help can instruct you to build one.
If you have 2 observatories in operation the button is lit, clicking it brings up the sub menu with its options and upgrades.
looking at scanner sweep alone:
Obs has its own energy, sweep costs 20 energy, We can count how many multiples of 20 are available for each observatory. If there is 2 with 17 & 19 energy then none of the observatories have suffieicent energy for a sweep, where as soon as one gets 20 energy the button on the global interface lights up. You dont then need to hot key or scrurry around trying to find one to click on or even finding one with enought energy to do a sweep. it would be just there available from the command station menu.
This brings in an adaptation, Say your commanding in a Tech 3 station, the dash is going to be lit up accross the board when everything is built, then you get out and waddle your way to another station just built, its level 1, most of the buttons are grayed out when you get in, the game knows the structres exist and the requirements are met so... that stations dimmed buttons can just tell you the station is not not at a high enought level to interface with all the surroundin tech and needs upgrading.
Edit:
Oh , as for other things you want accessible to you all the time without messing around, one of those things would indeed be the obs, the other would be Armour & Weapons upgrades right there on your hud all the time via an Armoury Icon. The main icon could change slightly, eith by color or a symbol that appears while its doing an upgrade, as soon as its fiinished ita always there to click, you need to find it, you dont need to hot key it and you can constantly see if an upgrade is in progress or not so its harder to forget about getting the next upgrade.
With a single button for all scans you won't have a good overall picture of each obses energy and you can't use the obses efficiently. For example it's difficult to tell when you're going to get next obs at 20. Also, against SC I like to either burn out the most risky obs position energy first. Once I want to research MT, I empty the obs I'm going to use for research, since it will not scan anyway for the next 90 seconds.
I'd also like to strongly encourage people to learn hotkey and hotgroup usage as soon as possible. In NS' scale it's in no way beyond anyone's learning capabilities and it allows players to get so, so much more out from practically every aspect of commanding. Probably the visual look should give good indication of the hotkeys too. In original NS the hotkey grid works wonderfully. Even if every building key combination doesn't come as a second nature, you've got the visual aid avaible on the bottom corner without having to do any mouseovers or anything.
Besides there is plenty of room in the center at the bottom so there is nothing stopping us from listing the obs <energy> <location> with a button to select it, right click to jump back to the main comm interface.
Both a generic players and fenatics should be able to jump in and use two different GUI fronts from one another giving that generic user the ability to comm effectively rather than be so many leaps and bounds away from hardcore commanders.
The hud should not deviate away too much from the original NS1 hud. It was quite essential that everything was accessible away from bases & structures and are quickly accessible off screen via the grouping system. - Its does both squads & structures like in NS1.
There wants to be a commander training mode that they want to get in officialy this time around and hopefully they will.
The whole thing should be as easy to follow as any Command & Conquer games build menus, they are practically the same, even if still some people found even those games hard to follow at first, it will always be a learning curve. There is little you can do to to make these any more simpler when it comes to tech trees when you have
tried to keep is as simple as possible in the first place, its a complicated tesk being a commander and it wants to be as fulfilling as possible. make it too simple with too few technologies to unloack and its a boring job just ordering people around the map most of the time, a problem being address in NS2 this time to make it more interesting.
Of course to make it interesting you have to make it so there is an absolute reason to hold down multiple locations rather than fighting and defending one location. Defending these inmportant places makes for a more exciting play, adds more strategy, Of course there is a balance between <u>Interest</u> & <u>Complexity</u> that needs to be maintained.
I think all that needs to be done is to ensure the layout of the buttons in that 9 square grid is simplified.
You dont have to fully understand the actual tech tree its self, if you can just press obvious buttons that obviously unlock stuff and tell you what to do to enable them, the icons just need to be understandable, as many as possible at the front and that there are not too many sub menus, I think there are more than there need be at the moment and I think that not all need to be detached from the command center like they are now.
I can think of a couple of places where a sub menu can be dropped compleatly and a couple can be merged into one menu rather than lots of small ones everywhere.
I need to talk to him soon before he starts redoing the same layout with the new GUI system.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
@SgtBarlow
I understand what you are saying about buttons being more understandable. The main issue as I see it is (i'm sure UWE have this mapped out) that when you build a new CC or Hive you expect to be able to have access to new upgrades.
If it has been placed in because there is a belief that 'more buttons to press' = 'less boredom', or that a complex hierarchy makes for a 'more interesting and complex game' (I know I have no say in the matter) but I think it is a poor direction.
The reason I love Valve as an example of incredible game design, is if you see who they employ it includes psychologists and disciplines you would not generally see in a team. The reason as I believe for this, is that they are bringing people to the table that think differently. They have an interest in game design, but see the value of incorporating their understandings of human behaviour to the table. Divergent thinking, design thinking. The sort of thinking that people like IDEO sell themselves with very successfully.
I think the success of Valve's observations are clearly present in titles such as L4D2, among others. It is not exactly a 'complicated game' but it demonstrates the thinking. Any player knows as a survivor (because the game forces them to play that way) that 'I must protect other players to help myself'.
As a zombie you understand that that you are weak, but through playing you see the weaknesses and strengths of an attack and are thus forced to work as a team. I think L4D 1 fell short, in that it pretty much ended up going the same way each time. L4D2 varied the possibilities by having an extra two classes that bought different styles to the table. It also meant that (almost in a chess like way) the attack scenario differed and meant player strategy has to evolve to address this making for a more varied game.
The fundamental thing that L4D2 does however (and I am fairly sure YOU WILL NOT see this in any other game) is get people communicating. If you go on any server someone will be taking charge, because they have to. But most importantly, people are barking down their mics. "Why are you not here", "Catch up", or planning attacks as zombies.
Obviously i'm not suggesting that you employ a psychologist, you are not a multimillion pound company. But it is this kind of thinking that sells, and is very prevalent within the design community currently.
The issue with using a C&C interface, is not really because of the age of it. It is because it was made when people were just starting to understand game design. It supports a certain hierarchy when it comes to menus. It supports a single player game style. It is an RTS game. It was designed for C&C.
The thing I would be asking myself if designing for NS2 is 'what is the role of the commander?' or even more basic 'what is the commander?'. The right question is important, much more so than the answer. It defines the sort of answer you will receive, and defines the problem in a way that can be answered well.
Currently it seems as if this has not been considered (I don't mean to offend anyone) and that it is simply RTS stuck into an FPS world. But this element is so unique, that it should be a USP for the game. The design should start around the most important element. Dynamic infestation is a great concept, as is using dynamic lighting throughout. But who is the role that effects this?
I get the hierarchy, I get the game, but I don't get the commander's role and interface.
It seems watered down. 'Can a commander build, communicate, plan a strategy, organise players, support them effectively in a game?'. Getting bored may not be an issue when trying to do all those things at once as the most important role in the game.
Should it be made easier for players to keep playing even if the commander is poor? I'm not sure that is an answer or a workaround.
It would be better to see that the commander involves these things, but as a strategy defining the key roles as the ones you want players to be doing the most.
Personally (this is my view) I see the role becoming more complicated. The commander will be doing more in NS2 than NS1 from what I can see. You will also have multiple commanders, and the chance that they might will be moving between command centres.
If you do define certain areas that you want the commander doing X% of the time, then make other areas more 'understandable', not simple. Don't require people to spend 10 games working out what weapons or buildings people should be building. Make it so they know what can be built (hence a civ style menu would be a possible solution to this) but spend their time thinking what route they want to take.
Make communication vital to the role, mics are now common place in pc games. The commander should be built around this:
<b>"Do this, go here, go with this guy (squads) and kill this."</b>
If a player completes a task/ hangs out with his squad mates, he should be rewarded. Maybe even with health kits/ammo that are instantly awarded after a task is completed. It would sure get people doing what the comm says. They don't have to have health of course, but people will wear down and die if not.
<b>"What should I build next?"</b>
The commander should be concentrating on strategy. Darting around the screen, trying to take care of players (this is something that could see implemented with an improved relationship between communication/location/supply) and do everything 'to the same degree as everything else' is a struggle. Dropping health and ammo for players is clumsy. Being able to select the weakest player somewhere else on the map who has just communicated with you in a fire fight to supply them with health just in time, is incredible team work and strategy.
This relationship between players and commander could also be complemented by rewarding interaction between what the commander is looking at on screen.
For me the build menu is a culprit here, in that strategy should be defined by knowing how to get to a point... rather than wondering what you need to build to get to any point. Clicking random buttons is not strategy and will not keep new players interested.
Redefining the RTS element could be hugely interesting. Thinking 'what are the AMAZING possibilities with this genre' is incredibly interesting.
People worry about simplicity perhaps because the roles involved are not strong enough or clearly defined. Considering how people can get along well enough just with things to shoot (I know there is more to it than that, but in comparing to an RTS game) the commander role is going to be tough.
I hope this did not come across as condescending. I am just interested in what I have learnt over the past four years, and would love to bring this type of thinking into game design to make for some really interesting behaviours/experiences between people online.
I don't have time to digest it all yet, but there's one point I'd like to take out of context and bash.
<!--quoteo(post=1805175:date=Nov 10 2010, 02:53 PM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Nov 10 2010, 02:53 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805175"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Make communication vital to the role, mics are now common place in pc games.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
With an influx of new players to the genres of gaming, mics are not as common as some would hope. I have played NS1 games where maybe half had a mic.
Making a microphone the centerpiece of communication is bad. 50% won't be able to communicate.
This is why L4D has stuff like "shout-outs" to automatically update other players about what they spot or do. And it has the awesome radial voice menu so you can quickly direct and share info even without a mic.
So, I totally agree the Comm should be the building/teching/communicating/organizing master. But if so, we need to provide non-verbal methods to help the comm out. I really like your description of rewarding players who follow order somehow, and we know waypoints are an excellent way to organize. So, my main question is what else does the comm need to communicate (and be communicated from team members to the comm), and what can we do to enable that?
For the GUI, the complexity of the RTS aspect has been added so that there are more interesting choices than the NS1 nearly linear progression of power. How we deal with that extra complexity without devolving into say a SC/C&C model is tough to say the least. That being said, the RTS GUI has been pretty stable because it works in most cases. Notable exception would be SupComm where building units were relocated to the bottom because you had SO MANY things to build out of a single building. also, DotA has moved more info to the middle for spells and abilities and control since those are the main focus of the game.
I guess then the real question is two-fold (and the cornerstone of all GUI design):
<ol type='1'><li>Easy organization/navigation of complexity (Intuitive)</li><li>Tells everything the player everything they want to know. (this includes as much screen space for viewing as possible!)</li></ol>
But it should be designed around the idea that this is the future of gaming, and whilst supporting radio menus and text, the idea that the commander is audibly commanding me round the map is awesome.
"Hey i'm near the res node, let's get building" (Over comm) or "Lets get building" (On Radio Menu)
Commander presses button (that becomes aware to him when people communicate) that moves the screen to player location.
"Ok mate, i'll get one down asap. Just waiting for more resources!" or "Affimative" (Response could be a button now hovering over player to let him know he has accepted)
A guy hits his VOIP button repeatedly to get the comm's attention during a fire fight somewhere else, the button becomes apparent below his. Comm jumps over to assess. Drops health directly to him through the same key just before he is about to die.
"Hold back, you are pushing out too far" or "Hold Position" (Either from selecting and clicking on the ground, or radio menu)
A possibly scenario.
Communication is the action of sending information to someone and them responding. That is it. Something as simple as way points, and the player moving to them is communication.
----------
As for the answer to the RTS question, the idea that players will do what the hell they like almost completely dissolves the idea of way points. Apart from the idea that the comm will be building at a specific location. Because:
If however, the player 'has' to do something to benefit themselves (people are generally selfish unless they understand they have to care for others to survive, especially in games where emotion is pretty much non existent. People just do not die. Hence why that emotional aspect is probably being explored so deeply, such as cinematic experiences that we are currently seeing. There is no attachment without emotion.) they will do it.
Players understand they have to build to survive. Why not take it further and make it so they have to complete tasks (not to survive so much, as this takes away too much self control over players) to gain health/ammo. Maybe even the priority in the amount of res they get as an individual giving access to the better weapons (flamethrower, etc).
If you are completing orders, you are rewarded.
If there are none, nothing happens.
If you support other players who have order, you are rewarded.
If you are in groups, you are rewarded.
If you do not complete orders you can not have the cool flamethrower, or minigun, or res to spend. Or health and ammo. (Maybe for a limited period)
etc.
I was amused by Empires' system of making people work together. Being in a squad and near the leader gives a bonus (he kinda has an aura I guess), doing stuff as a squad gives bonuses, completing objectives given to squad give points, etc. The biggest problem is it started to become heavy-handed and you could farm squad points. Plus, new players had no idea this mechanic even existed.
Really though L4D is a great example of gameplay + immersion + intuitive design. As you stated previously, you naturally start to work together and realize what's going on. It's a combo of mechanics, sounds, events, in-game tutorial, UI, mapping, and great design. Granted, some of the stuff won't carry over, like how L4D strongly hurts you if you run off alone and in NS that should be a viable option, but it should be a goal that our games could try to be as intuitive and have a strong underlying teaching structure around them. The trick is doing it WITHOUT the players noticing. That turns into players feeling like they're just puppets to the game. They don't like that.
In terms of NS1, the most common reward system was buildings, weapons, and health/ammo packs. Oh, and Marine teams that worked together (i.e. followed a good comm or had a competent comm that followed what the on-the-ground leader said) actually won, but that took so long to get around to it and there were so many other factors lots of players don't realize that is what won or lost games.
As for what you are talking about (I am no psychologist, but I am becoming more interested in this area) people are always bad at seeing long term benefit over short term fixes.
It is called Behavioural Economics.
'People often choose short-term gratification over long-term rewards'
An example:
A kid really wants a sweet. You say you can have 5 sweets if you wait till the end of the day. The kid will take the sweet.
(I just made that up as an example, not sure if it is 100%, I imagine it is... but that is something like what it sabout)
But also!
People are loss-averse. They will take a big risk to avoid loss, even if the loss is small.
An example:
"How much would you need to be paid to mow your neighbour's lawn? Is this more than how much you would pay them to mow yours? Most people would need to be paid much more to mow someone else's lawn".
So say you incorporated this sort of thing into NS2. You see that people like to go 'gun ho' into the corridors, because they get satisfaction out of it but do not see that it effects them in the long term.
However, if they do not go to the way point the commander has just given... they will make a loss in res/not get health/etc...
This would hopefully work in that they would move to the way point to avoid the risk. Or do whatever is required of them.
Might be an interesting read for those who are interested :)
First is a 6 page article on ui interaction in strategy games on gamsutra from.. something around 2006 I think
<a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1839/too_many_clicks_unitbased_.php" target="_blank">http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1839..._unitbased_.php</a>
The other is a paper on fps interface design
"Beyond the HUD - User Interfaces for Increased Player Immersion in FPS Games"
<a href="http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/111921.pdf" target="_blank">http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/record...text/111921.pdf</a>
@SgtBarlow
I understand what you are saying about buttons being more understandable. The main issue as I see it is (i'm sure UWE have this mapped out) that when you build a new CC or Hive you expect to be able to have access to new upgrades.
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->Yes, this is what happens only you <u>can't</u> see it clearly enought as the unlocked tech takes some routing around to find. Something everyone here is concerened about and is thrustrating because it impeeds on progress.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
If it has been placed in because there is a belief that 'more buttons to press' = 'less boredom', or that a complex hierarchy makes for a 'more interesting and complex game' (I know I have no say in the matter) but I think it is a poor direction.
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->No, Some fikely things have been removed (Dropping Weapons & kit) because it was <u>complained about by the community in NS1 a lot</u>. This removes a portion of interactivity between commander and player but it also just happened to be a huge annoyance too.
Not only does that gap need filling with the removal of that portion of interactivity but interactivity between commander and player needs to be maintained, more of it would not go amiss too though thus making commander and player work together to secure and hold locations is a must to progress and get more tech. That inst about making more buttons to click we want those to be minimalistic as possible, its about encouraging more team work.
NS1 you just tend to one base and try to destroy 2 - 3 alien hives, more flavour and a need to expand has been introduced to the Marine team, Something the Alien team has always had and was always appealing hence giving it to marines too, Vica Versa with the commanding too.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
I get the hierarchy, I get the game, but I don't get the commander's role and interface.
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->I don't know the original idea behind it all, All i can say is provides the team distincive unique leader who can support them and order them.
if you compare NS1 Alien Team to Marine Team and how they are played out, you can see the aliens are more scattered and soloist wich can be their down fall unless someone does give direction compareded to the marines who always have direction (when players listen and follow orders that is)<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
It seems watered down. 'Can a commander build, communicate, plan a strategy, organise players, support them effectively in a game?'. Getting bored may not be an issue when trying to do all those things at once as the most important role in the game.
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->Towards end game its slows right down for the commander, In NS1 your just forever placing weapons untill the last hive is fianally killed off and in that senario eveyone knows where their going and what they got to do, the command just sits and watches the game end for far too long, where as NS2 you more consistancy all the way through with things to do through being able to capture and build forward bases and you dont have to worry so much about someone stealing your chair if you want to get out for a bit, you can always hop in a nother station and carry on with your role so you dont have to feal chained to it once your in it.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Should it be made easier for players to keep playing even if the commander is poor? I'm not sure that is an answer or a workaround.
<!--coloro:#00BFFF--><span style="color:#00BFFF"><!--/coloro-->yes, games are ofter ruined in NS1 (Community feedback) by bad commanding, hence currently allowing more than one and by takinging away some of the dependancy on the commander to give you weapons and kit. Another person can jump in a staion and unlock tech if the inexperienced comm is stuggling, with 2 staions you dont have to subject someone to horific abuse and ejection, They can still dabble while someon takes care of the essentials.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
The best thing about promoting mic usage goes back to what Runteh was talking about with psychological analysis of gamer behavior. I believe that the greatest way to hook someone onto a game is through human interaction, if a newbie steps into a game with people strategizing over voice chat I think there will be a much higher likelihood of the player becoming emotionally invested in the game, as opposed to one where he comes in, runs around a bit by himself and ignores his teammates, dies, then gets bored.
If countless companies are able to make their RTS UIs accessible to new players while still having their UIs keep up with the demands required from high level players (I'm referencing the 'traditional' RTS interface) then I see no reason why UWE can't do the same. Maybe (as in an unplayable alpha isn't enough to make a judgment) the order of things presented to the player can be switched around, hotkeys changed, etc. but I see no reason to support a drastically different system compared to what all other RTS games have adopted as the standard.
You risk alienating players even more when they pop into the RTS aspect of the game and it doesn't resemble any other control scheme out there. Plus, let's wait until we can actually fill a server before we try to rewrite any UI's.
That said, if I read your post right you basically want to make the RTS side more accessible. I think your mock up of the "Tech Adviser" is something that is awesome and could be a great learning tool. If a new commander hears a bunch of people saying they need jetpacks, find the jetpack button (grayed out because the tech isn't there yet) and open up the tech adviser. For an added bonus, allow the buttons on the tech adviser pop up to actually work as a way to research the required technology or drop the required building which would free up a player trying to figure out where to click to find it.
If countless companies are able to make their RTS UIs accessible to new players while still having their UIs keep up with the demands required from high level players (I'm referencing the 'traditional' RTS interface) then I see no reason why UWE can't do the same. Maybe (as in an unplayable alpha isn't enough to make a judgment) the order of things presented to the player can be switched around, hotkeys changed, etc. but I see no reason to support a drastically different system compared to what all other RTS games have adopted as the standard.
You risk alienating players even more when they pop into the RTS aspect of the game and it doesn't resemble any other control scheme out there. Plus, let's wait until we can actually fill a server before we try to rewrite any UI's.
That said, if I read your post right you basically want to make the RTS side more accessible. I think your mock up of the "Tech Adviser" is something that is awesome and could be a great learning tool. If a new commander hears a bunch of people saying they need jetpacks, find the jetpack button (grayed out because the tech isn't there yet) and open up the tech adviser. For an added bonus, allow the buttons on the tech adviser pop up to actually work as a way to research the required technology or drop the required building which would free up a player trying to figure out where to click to find it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So basically what you're saying is that it's ok to copy every other RTS because that's what everyone else is doing? I understand the point about "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but the point isn't that - the GUI *is* broke. it's clunky as hell, especially regarding portions of the map that are interactive (doors, etc). since when is innovation a bad thing? As long as newbies can relate to something intuitively, a new GUI style won't drive away players, in fact it could become a major selling point. People will want to try it *because* it looks new and different. You're right, maybe a major GUI redesign will delay the release of NS2. But I thought the whole idea was that they wanted to take their time and do things RIGHT. Just because something is accepted as 'standard' in the RTS genre doesn't make it right for NS2.
It is cool to see you guys in the community and I appreciate the time taken to read and reply.
It will be interesting to see what the next few builds bring.
I do feel you missed the point with the idea of simplification. It is how the interface reads to the player, how it is understandable in its complexity. Anything is simple once understood. But getting someone to move from confusion to understanding is the key point you are trying to accomplish.
C&C was easy. You had all the structures possible on the right. You upgraded/built from the structures on the map.
The hierarchy (as has been demonstrated) is more complex than the standard type. The routes you go through are much more complicated. Even in how a build bot has to be sent to build something. It is another layer.
I don't think it should be reduced, but the interface should be designed to complement that. So that anyone can understand how to get from A to B. Not struggle through and get kicked from the chair, but learn as they play.
A standard RTS interface may not be the answer because it works. The question is does it work well for NS2?
I get that towards the end of the game the comm has little to do (when aliens are being hammered), but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I would also be inclined to say that it has much to do with the fact that there was no punishment for not doing what the comm says. So that level of control diminishes. Or that there is no reward either. Maybe there is a solution similar to the whip, or nanite tech (similar to umbra/but not umbra) that could be dropped on marine groups?
Strategy (unless the game is understood) is also lost, if new players don't know what they are aiming for in terms of builds/upgrades/weapons.
The important point mentioned earlier about training tutorials is that you loose the immersion. The majority just want to jump into games and have fun, not read manuals before playing.
If you created a comm who could effectively manage a team (who would do what he asked [for reason X *see behavioural economics]), and have the ability for the commander to press a button, see the hierarchy visually and just think 'flamethrower sounds good, aliens and stuff, i'll build in that direction'. In those two actions you have done two things, given an aim for the player/learner, and freed up time to have a more involved relationship with other players.
The last thing you want to see is the commander so bogged down in everything that they are not 'commanding'. Otherwise it will be an RTS - FPS, not an RTSFPS.
"Beyond the HUD - User Interfaces for Increased Player Immersion in FPS Games"
<a href="http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/111921.pdf" target="_blank">http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/record...text/111921.pdf</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just finished reading this. DANG. Very awesome.
I feel like you didn't read my post, but you quoted it, so I'll give you benefit of the doubt. As I said in my post, just because some items are clunky (which I don't think we can even determine right now since the entire game plays like garbage on most machines, another thing I said in my post) or poorly placed does not warrant an entire overhaul of a UI that's been adopted as the industry standard. I feel like people, and you're a prime example, have this irrational fear or argumentative attitude to what is standard or widely accepted. Do you know why the RTS industry uses the traditional UI game after game? Because it works.
Creating a UI that resembles that of the original post's suggestion? Horrible.
Just because something is innovative doesn't mean it's an improvement. Don't be so quick to throw away a UI system that's been used by developers and players for 30+ years.
<!--quoteo(post=1805261:date=Nov 11 2010, 06:44 AM:name=Runteh)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Runteh @ Nov 11 2010, 06:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1805261"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The last thing you want to see is the commander so bogged down in everything that they are not 'commanding'. Otherwise it will be an RTS - FPS, not an RTSFPS.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I've made a lot of posts about this topic as I really want to see a big improvement in the RTS aspect of NS2 when compared to NS1. When getting into forum debates I ran into people who have this mentality. Basically, you want to see the commander make strategic decisions and worry about 'the big picture,' if I've summarized your thoughts correctly.
This is a bad idea. Why? Because the commander does not make these decisions on his own. The marines would holler at the commander for weapons, upgrades, phase gates, siege farms, etc. These are all extremely strategic decisions and the team, although they aren't clicking the button on the RTS side, basically made the decision. The team (commander + marines) inherently decides their own strategy throughout the course of the game, not a single person, and to build a role around strategic decision making would be a mistake because when the team inventively contributes to the strategy the latter mentioned role will feel empty and boring.
I think UWE may feel the same way and I like where UWE is taking the commander's role so far with NS2. Having controllable units, such as the siege tank and builder bots, is a big improvement over NS1. Giving the commander something to do other than click research buttons and spam medpacks is essential.
I wouldn't want the commander to take away the freedom for the players, but if a guy keeps running off and getting killed or doesn't follow orders. Res and health/ammo support should be limited somehow. Not to the degree where they can't keep running off, but to the point where they think 'oh crap I can't have a jetpack for 4 mins because i'm being a tool' (or something)..
There is a lot more to do this time round with macs/build bots/dynamic infestation/power nodes to look after. Same for aliens. If the build hierarchy is understood and made easy to build from, then you can spend more time in a role that creates a really cool relationship between the commander/players, discussing strategy, etc...
Players tend to run off into the map early on, but the commander still needs to tell them what to do, and where to go to get the job done. The players don't see that overview aspect.
Players should be able to buy their own weapons, in fact I dislike even the idea of dropping health and meds. The suggestion was that communication/player location should be combined. So if someone uses PTT (VOIP) a button appears that allows you to assess the player, go to their location and then just click a health or ammo button next to their name to supply them. Or that they automatically gain health/ammo after completing a task.
It doesn't stop players from doing what they like, but it supports the idea of the commander calling the shots (so to speak). He is the commander after all, and can see what is going on.
As is, people will jump into the chair. Not really have an aim because they can't see what to build next. Spend a while being confused, and not really bother.
Also if the commander is not to make decisions strategically or otherwise, what is the point of waypoints? That is strategy... Or what to build next? that is strategy...
If the role is more defined in what you want the commander to spend most of the time doing, you have something to work towards that will really sell the role. If it is 'a bit of this, a bit of that' it will get tiresome, because the player will not have an idea of his/her aim in the role.
The discussion in here about UI is not for some sort of mentality in pushing some of strategy to the forefront (I don't quite understand what you have described as the commander making greater strategic decisions, when building etc is all down to him? How could that be taken further?) but in creating something that is easy for anyone to understand.
I did read your post. Ships passing in the night, perhaps. In any case, I didn't determine clunkiness based on on-screen lag. I determined it based on how easy it was to do what I wanted to do, with the interface that was given to me. And in terms of that, the UI is clunky in places. And not just because the buttons are grouped wrong or whatever, or I didn't know hotkeys. You're right, the traditional RTS UI certainly does work. But why did UWE decide to make NS2? At least in part, it was because they wanted to make a better game. One free from the restrictions of the half-life engine. One that incorporated a lot of awesome new ideas. Did we need a flamethrower? No. But why is there one in NS2? Because it's goddamn awesome! I see a possibility for a differently-styled GUI to be awesome also. I can accept that "it would be too much work" or "UWE doesn't have the resources to develop a new GUI", but one thing I won't accept is that something is horrible just because it's different from what you're used to.
I don't want to come across as argumentative. I love NS and am loving playing the alpha so far. I just believe strongly that it can be better, and that a game with a distinctive visual style like NS2 could benefit from a change in UI layout.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Creating a UI that resembles that of the original post's suggestion? Horrible.
Just because something is innovative doesn't mean it's an improvement. Don't be so quick to throw away a UI system that's been used by developers and players for 30+ years.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the flip side, just because it's been used for 30+ years, a deficient UI will be easy to spot, and detract from gaming experience. How can you say that a GUI with a similar style to the OP can't work? he just made a quick photoshop with 0 polish. Of course it'll look like crap. Radial menus work. They worked in NS1, i don't see why they won't work for NS2 in a slightly different role. I feel like you're refusing to see the positives of the idea because you take OP's picture at face value and don't see it in your mind's eye as how it would play out in-game.
The thing is, with traditional RTS, you often have a single player campaign which walks you through the tiered units, upgrade options, buildings and special abilities step-by-step. So by the time you hit multiplayer, you are at least somewhat competent in interacting with the UI. This makes multiplayer RTS's much more newbie-friendly. There is no SP for NS2. A new comm will jump directly into the chair, commence to not know wtf to do, and get ejected. This is my big argument against the traditional RTS layout. It requires you to progress up the learning curve quite a bit before you can effectively command in a real-time scenario. This is compounded by the fact that NS is by nature a faster paced game than many traditional RTS. Spawning new base units doesn't cost resources, so you're constantly pressuring and getting pressured at key map points. There's not a whole lot of "build up an army, then move out" because your army is constantly moving out of its own volition. I believe that associating UI elements by placing them spacially near the objects they're related to on-screen will help ease people into the comm role.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I've made a lot of posts about this topic as I really want to see a big improvement in the RTS aspect of NS2 when compared to NS1. When getting into forum debates I ran into people who have this mentality. Basically, you want to see the commander make strategic decisions and worry about 'the big picture,' if I've summarized your thoughts correctly.
This is a bad idea. Why? Because the commander does not make these decisions on his own. The marines would holler at the commander for weapons, upgrades, phase gates, siege farms, etc. These are all extremely strategic decisions and the team, although they aren't clicking the button on the RTS side, basically made the decision. The team (commander + marines) inherently decides their own strategy throughout the course of the game, not a single person, and to build a role around strategic decision making would be a mistake because when the team inventively contributes to the strategy the latter mentioned role will feel empty and boring.
I think UWE may feel the same way and I like where UWE is taking the commander's role so far with NS2. Having controllable units, such as the siege tank and builder bots, is a big improvement over NS1. Giving the commander something to do other than click research buttons and spam medpacks is essential.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, the commander is as much a tactician as a strategist. I agree that inclusion of micro-able units is a good thing. I believe what is really missing from the comm is a way to effectively manage his resource pool; the macro element is still lacking because aside from research and buildings/MACs, commanders have nothing to use as a resource sink, and end up having a lot of unspent resources. However, the catch is that we want to mitigate the ill effects of an incompetent comm. It's a little hard to think of a system that is both challenging in the competitive scene, and yet dummy-proof in the pub scene. On the surface they almost seem mutually exclusive.
I feel like we're playing two different games or have two completely different opinions. I see nothing in NS2 currently that warrants a complete rework of the RTS UI. Improvements? Sure, bring them on. Reinventing the wheel? Not so much.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The thing is, with traditional RTS, you often have a single player campaign which walks you through the tiered units, upgrade options, buildings and special abilities step-by-step. So by the time you hit multiplayer, you are at least somewhat competent in interacting with the UI. This makes multiplayer RTS's much more newbie-friendly. There is no SP for NS2. A new comm will jump directly into the chair, commence to not know wtf to do, and get ejected. This is my big argument against the traditional RTS layout.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The confusion you describe has literally nothing to do with the UI but rather the normal learning curve associated with any game. Even simple FPS games like COD4 have a similar learning curve.
If I saw something that made me go "whoa, this isn't working and it can't ever work with the current system" I'd love to read suggestions like this. But I don't. I see a complex fix for no particular problem.
The confusion you describe has literally nothing to do with the UI but rather the normal learning curve associated with any game. Even simple FPS games like COD4 have a similar learning curve.
If I saw something that made me go "whoa, this isn't working and it can't ever work with the current system" I'd love to read suggestions like this. But I don't. I see a complex fix for no particular problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and what of the flamethrower example? NS worked perfectly fine without a flamethrower. It's the definition of "complex fix for no particular problem" - it adds a huge balancing point to the game where none existed before. I'll give you a problem that could warrant fixing - making certain things like the whip similar to units in other RTS's will inevitably draw comparisons and possibly "SC2 did it better" criticism. a different visual flair would help alleviate that.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The confusion you describe has literally nothing to do with the UI but rather the normal learning curve associated with any game. Even simple FPS games like COD4 have a similar learning curve.
If I saw something that made me go "whoa, this isn't working and it can't ever work with the current system" I'd love to read suggestions like this. But I don't. I see a complex fix for no particular problem.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say that the GUI caused the confusion. I'm saying that the GUI can help alleviate some of it.
What is wrong with redesigning an interface to make it more understandable, in that anyone can jump in the seat and understand their role as commander. Yet not alter the complexity of the role?
The problem is, none of us are a good judge of how easy the interface is. There are two main problems.
The commander is the most important player:
In FPS games, their popularity comes from the immersion factor and their simplicity. The controls relate to existing learning, you automatically understand that when shown the basic WASD setup a W will send you forward because it is closer to the screen, the S will send you backwards. The mouse lets you look around you. Not much has changed since those controls have been used. Communication between payers (very important) has, and you can go prone, sprint.. etc. Apart from the story not much is different.
f you enter a game, you can follow the examples of the players around you. So learning dynamically is already there, as well as the immersion factor. People don't want to play tutorials. Everyone is different mind, some people read more than others. But if you cater for the extremes - someone who just jumps head first in - then the rest take care of themselves. (This is not about simplicity, this about making complex understandable)
The issue with NS2 is that the most important role that essentially effects the outcome of the game has none of these things. We understand the role; so complex is simple.
The real test is getting a people who have never played before to test out the interface. They should have a rough understanding of the game and probably a little FPS and RTS experience.
Watch them play...
What do they have difficulty in doing?
Now you have identified a problem.
I am willing to bet that whilst (this is not an ultra extreme, but you can't design a UI for everyone) he understands he/she has to command a team, they don't understand what they have to build and what to build next. I played NS from pretty much the beginning, and when jumping into the chair had no idea what I had to build to get the flame thrower. I had no understanding of hierarchy route. I expect others had the same problem.
Yet this is a role that is currently dictating the outcome of every game, but not just that. Every player (7+) on one team.
Now imagine all those players are new to NS.
Imagine they have a bad experience of a confusing game.
Imagine they don't tell their friends how cool it is, so they don't end up buying a copy.
People always pick up things, objects, products. They use them and go "oh it is just so cool". They can't put their fingers on it, and in that it has done the job. It is because it has been considered at every stage and every detail. From human and psychological factors, to how it emotionally feels in you hand.
Speaking of emotion. There was a bar in the progress thread that mentioned 'player feel'. I think that there should be 'commander feel'. Something that further defines the role and your relationship with the people on it.
Players getting hurt? Ow, the screen takes a little kick and a red shader plays out. This might not be the right answer, but it certainly lets the commander know they have to take care of people.
All these little things that play with our subconscious, and so much that could be done with a role that IS the most important and defining human element of the game.
p.s I am not suggesting change of the sake of change. If they can find a way to make the current interface more intuitive than that is what is best for the game. I believe with the current hierarchy, this will be a struggle.
Going back to simpletons:
At the end of the day a GUI is required no matter what you do buttons on a screen are required & tool tips & new user button & structure Highlighting are required for learners, irrigaurdless of the of the techtree and to a certain extent its complexity the GUI can be simple and easy in comparison to the tech tree it intefraces with. They are going with the original design it just needs some tweeks and helpers. The NS1 HUD works well but lacked a teacher so to say.
The aim for me here is to try & talk about reducing the number bottons required for whats already implimented as NS2 has made it a bit wayhey from what it was in NS1.
I would also like to see the option for advanced users where the Commander hud except for the mini map is hidden and you press a key to toggle it (pops back up its self on clicking a structure) if you have selected "Enable Toggle Commander Inteface" in options as well as "Enable Tool Tips", As these advanced users will be using hotkeys more than anything and proabbly:
1. Would like the extra screen space as anyone would.
2. Dont need tool tips.
For new users i would like to get the interface to inform (When "Command Asstant" is Enabled) them as to what important structures are missing or upgrades that are essention to get next.
This invloves highlighting structures and buttons that the user needs to click on, either by changing its color or with a glowy haze outline.
There are loads of ideas that can be executed here, dont worry the right ones will be found and I will try talking to Charlie & bring to light everyones concerns posted here and in all the other threads.
- Marc
I'll summarise.
I think sub menus within menus is a BAD idea. (Nothing should be deeper menu wise than what you have clicked on and is now displayed. Because if you are searching for something that is deeper, you not only have to click on each unit, but then click on a button for that unit to reveal more buttons to look for.)
Divide the interface:
Well we have movement action buttons. (Move/Stop/Attack)
We have buttons that upgrade. (EMP blast/Mines)
We have buttons that build. (Structures)
Do movement actions really need buttons?
Perhaps movement/attacks/actions are related to mouse actions, or (as has been suggested) floaty on screen buttons that are required to be immediate access.
Do I have to click on a button then on screen to get a sentry to point in a certain direction. Or can I not just click/hold drag to make it face the right way?
Does it make sense to upgrade structures within other structures? I don't think so. (My big issue with obtaining weapons/upgrades in tier 2 is by pressing L2 in the 2nd CC and is confusing). It should occur through a single action, otherwise the hierarchy is more like this:
<img src="http://www.techfresh.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/wordlock.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Why have 3 buttons for 3 different levels of armour and 3 for different weapon upgrades? Why not one for each that goes up a level and helps indicate that by morphing somehow?
As for the command assistant, hovering over a button (flame thrower say) should display the buttons of all the upgrades/buildings required to get to that point. Or as suggested at the start of this thread, if it is blanked out, click on it and the build hierarchy is displayed top left permanently until another desired 'weapons/whatever' is selected.
Also, I know blue looks great and all... but find some visual way of distinguishing between actions/upgrades and structures. It is quite confusing currently. If not colour, change silhouette. Round/hexagonal/bigger corner radius... whatever.
The addition of the flamethrower, something Flayra always wanted since NS 1 was released, has a distinct purpose in NS2. It removes dynamic infestation and is, presumably, good at destroying buildings. If UWE reworked a proven and established user interface because they were afraid of "SC2 did it better" criticisms then they'll waste a lot of time for nothing.