This thread is to discuss different UI features and organization ideas. Strategy games are all about the UI. A good strategy game with a less than amazing UI quickly can become a mediocre strategy game. UI needs to be able to show the player enough information to let him understand what is going on without having too much that would cause a new player to become frustrated.
I am going to focus mostly on screens, rather than things like tabs or stuff like that. But Iwant to encourage anybody that has ideas to post. I know when I look at what others say I sometimes forget that I have an opinion too and don't post anything. If you have something to input, please go ahead. I want discussion here ! (I'm swinging my forum troll stick)
One idea for this game is having several worlds between which the war of magic can be waged. Several turn-based strategy games have had multiple maps at the same time. Master of Magic in particular had very strong multi-map features. Another good example is “cave wars” which had many different levels that could be burrowed between using giant drills. Having multiple world is nothing new. It has been done. However; a particularly good UI for multi-world display certainly has yet to be made. I saw somebody else talked about a tab system for the multi-world display.
My first major idea is multi-screen support. Many powerful PC users have two monitors.
I can only think of one other game that features strong multi-screen support, and I think that this game should be the second. This is especially the case if there are multiple worlds. Players with more than one screen should be able to set the other screen to different views. I’m going to break the ideas into 2 sections: Overland and battle UI ideas (at least for my post. Other people please post your own ideas)
Another forum member by the name of “Vandenburg” mentioned in a post I made about multi-world ideas that “They always have one significant flaw, you can't have both of them on the minimap/main map/whatever, at once”. I can think of several choices to fix this.
Exact same screen position, but different world: This will be easier to do visualization. There should be a second glowing point to show where the indicator is pointing on the other map or something similar too. As I am going to talk about later on the page, sometimes it is hard to visualize exactly where something is located on the corresponding plane. So when one screen moves, the other moves as well.
Different screen, maybe different world: This is more like how supreme commander does it. You just operate the two different screens independently. Not much to say here, look at supreme commander. This is useful for organizing troop movement. Move one screen to where you want everybody to go and the other you can move around to find all your guys. One of the most annoying features of some games is the fact that to view a unit you must move the screen to them, but then you have to go all the way back to where you want to send them. But with this feature you can move one screen to the destination and use the other screen to make sure you are selecting the right army to move. There should be a lock button or option that switches between the options. I cannot imagine one is more complex to program than the other, and certainly system requirements would be the same.
Unit/city details. Sometimes you want to be able to look at the map while making your building or character choices. Not much else to say.
Single or multi-screen UI indicators
There should be an indicator where the cursor or center of the screen can be found. I remember back in the day putting a pencil eraser on my screen and switching maps so that I didn’t lose where the center of the screen was. So I knew where my guys would teleport into the other map if I cast a plane-shift spell or something similar. It was not too bad in heroes of might and magic, at least not as bad as Master of Magic and cave wars (it was very bad in cave wars. I would become angry because I would touch the edge of the screen on my way to the switch maps button and the screen would move subtly, then my builder would appear in the middle of a crystal or something that I wanted to come up beside). I should not have to use a pencil or something to help me keep track of something on my screen. Especially if multi-screen support is heavily considered, there should be a feature to help show where things exist cross-plane. Either a semi-transparent outline of where a guy is effectively on the current world in relation to where he is on the other. This could at least be available when players are picking which world into which the army should plane shift.
Another alternative to the split screen support
Another option would be to display the other worlds in a semi-transparent overlay. Like if you pick to plane shift (setup a cross-dimentional drill, prepare to slash with the subtle knife, or whatever would be appropriate) a bubble could appear around the character (drill, tower, or whatever). Everybody supports an alpha layer these days, right? So there shouldn’t be a problem.
I forgot to add: COMBAT on 2nd screen!
second screen should also have an option to be like a cinematic view. Something fun to watch. This is especially true if there is hot-seat gaming, because the other player will just sit and watch. I know in games past the statement "oh, a battle. I'm going to go grab something to eat while this is going" and that will likely be said again, but it should be said less. It should be super fun to watch, and that would make "cinimatic view" used a whole lot more.
Multimon is something I'm hoping for big time. A fully user customizable interface layout is what I want.
But far more people do not.
Given that SD has talked a lot in the recent past about creating games that can be played on a wide variety of systems, I don't see it as likely that any major features of the game are going to rely on having two monitors. Dual monitor setups are still a badge of extreme geekdom. Heck, I don't even think we should count on widescreen monitors; last time I checked, 4:3/1024x768 was still the industry-standard "safe" aspect/resolution to target, given the number of older screens that are still out there.
The challenge with UI design is that, while you can support all sorts kinds of glitz and jazz for the high-end users, the interface still has to be perfectly functional for the smallest, puniest computer that meets the game's requirements.
In short, given the capabilities of the "average" user's system, the likely desire not to exclude those users, and the subsequent need to support even the least-well-equipped people in that category, I think any proposals that hinge on or require multiple monitors are very unlikely to be successful.
Sorry to be such a wet blanket...
- Ash
@asharak - woah, I'm not saying duel-moniter is a requirement. Not at all! Being able to adapt to standard 4:3 PCs with 1 moniter is very important. It is just that there ARE dual-monitor setups on a lot of geek machines, so if it isn't a problem there should be the option for it. Widescreen is common enough that pretty much everything has settings for it, and have for a long time. Its never required, and UI is usually* able to adjust to both standards of screen shape. This would just be another feature found in the video section.
It wouldn't really even change the gameplay, but rather just make some things a tiny bit faster or easier to visualize for those who do have it. The cinimatic view idea is for over-the-shoulder watchers. Again, most people probebly wouldn't have that situation, but the option will still be appriciated.
It would be good for future proofing for the game to support multiple displays; I'm not sure how to get a "full screen" do that though. If the interface was sub-window based you could just stretch a windowed version of the game across multiple displays and move the sub-windows around as desired... but it might not be like that.
I don't have even a decent idea of what the development time cost of this feature would be, and that's a pretty important variable.
Somebody wrote in another thread (I think it was the random/blind research thread) a very good post about that:
Optional content feature creep isn't a very good idea for the developers.
Yea, OAB. However, this may fall in the same category as the 64-bit support: only applies to a (possibly small) subset of users, and certainly won't be free development-time-wise, but is good for future proofing and for the really, really epic games.
Dunno, depends on how hard multimon is to implement.
optional contect feature creep may not be good for the developers if done without proper consideration, but some features are worth the extra step.
optional content should have a reward vs. cost applied to it. I think in the random/blind research thread, it is a little different. That requires a lot time put into balancing and planning different research systems, much more than duel-moniter support. With one research system in place, there really isn't a reason to have a second research system as well. UI features arn't the same though Duel-moniter support will have bugs just like everything else, but once its done, then its done. Playtesting for bug checks on that should be fairly straight forward I would imagine. Its still pretty much the same as single screen play provided the UI was planned with the idea that a second screen could exist. Duel-moniters are the minority for sure, but demand for support of it is really high within that minority. So high that people who have duel-moniters that might buy the game just because they hear they can use their expensive entertainment systems on it in a way few other games allow. So we should really consider if the cost of adding this feature wouldn't outweigh the benifit to user audiance.
This game could really benifit from duel-moniter support as well, probebly more than almost any other game coming to market that I can think of. I would venture to say that if this game has the multi-world system MoM style, this game will benfit from it much MORE than SupCom did. So if there was one game in 2010 that had multi-moniter support, it should be this game.
(also, I'm just throwing out ideas. I think having some sort of multi-screen support shouldn't dent the budget enough to have to discuss if its a good idea or not, we will leave that up to stardock and their budget to decide since we don't have that kind of info. No reason to shoot it down at this point even if it wasn't very cost effective)
What I would want to see is a menu in options for screen layout, where you can set up various picture layouts that supports mutimon done a bit like fences (if anybody here is familiar with that) where you have the main view and then can lay out other windows, so on a single screen I can make a second window in a corner, zoom it out to the map view and lock it to my main screen as a minimap, or define a locked all the way out zoom for a second screen so I always have an overview handy and large, or so on and so forth with defining custom views. I have a feeling that may be a lot of work, but it would benefit everybody, not just those lucky folk with two monitors.
Aside from Vanenburg's point about optional feature creep, my concern is that you're putting the optional jazz ahead of the functional necessity that must come first. At the beginning of your post you acknowledge that no one has ever done a good UI for a multi-world game but then you leap to multiple monitors as the solution to the problem. My point is that unless someone - you, SD, or anyone - can come up with an acceptable single-monitor UI for those multiple worlds, then those worlds won't be going into the game in the first place and multi-monitor support for them will be a non-issue.
ah, but I did post an alternative too.
"alternative to the split screen support
Another option would be to display the other worlds in a semi-transparent overlay. Like if you pick to plane shift (setup a cross-dimentional drill, prepare to slash with the subtle knife, or whatever would be appropriate) a bubble could appear around the character (drill, tower, or whatever). Everybody supports an alpha layer these days, right? So there shouldn’t be a problem"
sorry if "split screen" wasn't clear that I ment split between two screens. In SupCom, you could still split the screen on 1 monitor. Like that functionality didn't change, so the actual UI could act as two screens on one. I probebly should have addressed it. the UI doesn't change between 1 moniter and 2 and the new feature that other games don't have is the ability to look at more than one place at a time (or over lay the maps on each other if you go with the alt idea). However if the UI is 2 moniter friendly and the engine supports 2 screens, then its all good.
How about this as a compromise?
You should be able to run the game in a window (vs. full-screen, although you could still do full-screen if you'd like). Since this is built on Stardock's other Desktop X software, this should be viable.
Then, parts of the UI could float as windows themselves and be draggable outside of the game window. Thing of UI elements as widgets/gadgets.
Why is this a good model? It would allow people to run the game in a window and move the UI around freely as they see fit. Or, in landisaurus' case and others with two monitors, they could move different UI elements to the second monitor. And perhaps some of the UI elements could be an expanded overland map, detailed stats on your armies, current research, or just a gigantic 3D imagine of your cool-looking channeler.
I think this would garner a lot of love from people that want to customize the UI and also accommodate users that have fancier rigs/setups.
I like Lord R's Idea. This also gives that totally customizable UI that I think just about everybody wants. The only flaw I can see is maybe steep system requirements (I imagine this to be the case for seperate windows over the desktop, but I might be wrong)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account