21 replies to this topic

[Aegis Kleais]

In footage, YOUR damage display shows an L on the Left of the screen and R on the right. This is fine, as I envision the design to be me looking outward and can immediately map left and right in the display to my field of view's left/right.

But the enemy damage display is orientated in the same way, so I suggest the ability in options to set this to be flipped, so that the Mech's damage on his left is shown on the right side of the screen and vice-versa (as if the Mech was looking AT you) which the majority of encounters, I believe, will be.

Just a user-based preference.

[Lord Khyron]

They should flip you!

[Hawkeye 72]

Lord Khyron, on 17 April 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

They should flip you!

[Helmer]

Aegis Kleais™, on 17 April 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

In footage, YOUR damage display shows an L on the Left of the screen and R on the right. This is fine, as I envision the design to be me looking outward and can immediately map left and right in the display to my field of view's left/right.

But the enemy damage display is orientated in the same way, so I suggest the ability in options to set this to be flipped, so that the Mech's damage on his left is shown on the right side of the screen and vice-versa (as if the Mech was looking AT you) which the majority of encounters, I believe, will be.

Just a user-based preference.

I had mentioned this is a thread a few weeks ago and meant to start a separate thread.

Thanks Aegis, totally agree.



Cheers.

[Ramien]

I plan on spending as much time behind enemy mechs as possible, so that'd just reverse the reality for me. It'd be nice to see a rotating diagram that moved to match your current view instead.

[Karl Streiger]

Oh dear - a clan warrior that has problems with left and right...
if you don't have other problems...everybody should be able to know the difference between left and right - if you can't well why do you pilot a mech?

Don't get me wrong Aegis - but the quantity of your suggestions shouldn't lack the quality... you had better ideas in the past

Edited by Karl Streiger, 18 April 2012 - 02:29 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

Helmer, on 17 April 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

I had mentioned this is a thread a few weeks ago and meant to start a separate thread.

Thanks Aegis, totally agree.

Cheers.

Sorry Helmer, I didn't see the post. I guess we share a mindset.

Karl Streiger, on 18 April 2012 - 02:28 AM, said:

Oh dear - a clan warrior that has problems with left and right...
if you don't have other problems...everybody should be able to know the difference between left and right - if you can't well why do you pilot a mech?

Don't get me wrong Aegis - but the quantity of your suggestions shouldn't lack the quality... you had better ideas in the past

Quality is a subjective topic. What you personally feel is not quality is just that, a personal opinion. A suggestion that improves pilot comprehension of data fed to him in order to allow him to make quick tactical decisions in the shortest amount of time means that the UI is adaptive to the needs of the pilot, and as such, is successful.

Ignoring the condescension from your post in your faulty attempt to claim that I don't know my left from right (when obviously, having told you which side of the screen those elements were on proved to the contrary), I don't think that all suggestions need to be of amazing caliber to be worthwhile. In any project, even an incremental increase in usability or performance can have a quantitative and measurable result towards a better experience.

Ramien, on 18 April 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

I plan on spending as much time behind enemy mechs as possible, so that'd just reverse the reality for me. It'd be nice to see a rotating diagram that moved to match your current view instead.

Maybe even an ability to switch the display IN-GAME would be nice. An on-the fly toggle.

[Siilk]

Aegis Kleais™, on 17 April 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

But the enemy damage display is orientated in the same way, so I suggest the ability in options to set this to be flipped, so that the Mech's damage on his left is shown on the right side of the screen and vice-versa (as if the Mech was looking AT you) which the majority of encounters, I believe, will be.

Just a user-based preference.

I'm completely against that. Even though it could seem to be appealing, in reality it happens to be extremely counterintuitive and mess with your perception.

[Aegis Kleais]

Siilk, on 18 April 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

I'm completely against that. Even though it could seem to be appealing, in reality it happens to be extremely counterintuitive and mess with your perception.

How can you be against the OPTION to be able to flip it at the will of the user? I don't understand this mindset.

You can default it to the way it is now, to accommodate people who like it as it is, but what harm does it add to have the ability to support the option to flip the displays at the action of the pilot?

It's only counter-intuitive and messes with YOUR perception (and that's a valid opinion, you would never use the option to flip the design) But why are people so wanton to leave out features that could help persons other than themselves, especially when the suggested change doesn't affect their experience in the slightest?

[BeforeLife]

Hawkeye 72, on 17 April 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

YES!!!

[canned wolf]

All of the other mechwarrior games so far have had the abillity to cycle through different damage display types for your target. I think an HTAL that rotates based on your relative position sounds great. I'm curious to find out how often you have information that detailed about your target though.

[Helmer]

Aegis Kleais™, on 18 April 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

Sorry Helmer, I didn't see the post. I guess we share a mindset.



Quality is a subjective topic. What you personally feel is not quality is just that, a personal opinion. A suggestion that improves pilot comprehension of data fed to him in order to allow him to make quick tactical decisions in the shortest amount of time means that the UI is adaptive to the needs of the pilot, and as such, is successful.

Ignoring the condescension from your post in your faulty attempt to claim that I don't know my left from right (when obviously, having told you which side of the screen those elements were on proved to the contrary), I don't think that all suggestions need to be of amazing caliber to be worthwhile. In any project, even an incremental increase in usability or performance can have a quantitative and measurable result towards a better experience.


Maybe even an ability to switch the display IN-GAME would be nice. An on-the fly toggle.

No worries, its was an inbedded small post. http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__195714

And really? Now suggestions are rated by quality? Suggestions that perhaps, even in a small way, might make the game more enjoyable should be unmentioned and only suggestions that make a huge difference should be? A rather interesting way of looking at a SUGGESTIONS subforum.
I will admit that not all suggestions forum users posts here have merit or are in the realm of possibility , but a simple UI change or optional change seems fairly reasonable.

Its a preference. I can understand that perhaps some might view it as part of the learning curve, and I can appreciate that. And perhaps I'll get used to it, however, no matter how many times I watch the Pre-Alpha videos it still takes me a second.

Maybe its us Inner Sphere people who have issues with Right and Left?



Cheers.

Edited by Helmer, 18 April 2012 - 07:46 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Multiple view types is always best. I liked this type myself. Very intuitive and easily understood.

[CyBerkut]

I think the option to flip it to user preference is a fine suggestion. Some folks think in that manner, either by nature or by training (ie. Emergency Medical Technicians).

[Hayashi]

Hawkeye 72, on 17 April 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

This sir, made my day.

[Belisarius1]

I'm in favour of a fully customizable HUD, and I'm happy for this to be part of that if we get one. If we don't, I'm against it, because you can't clutter the options menu up with a checkbox for every single person's preference on every single feature. I think there are far more important things out there than this.

Personally, I would invert the front torsos of the schematic so that it matched a 'mech looking at you. I would not invert the rear torsos, because that way they would match when the target was facing away. The bar graph I would leave uninverted.

I don't really mind though. It's not that difficult to train your brain to whatever ends up being used.

Edited by Belisarius†, 18 April 2012 - 11:15 PM.

[Siilk]

Aegis Kleais™, on 18 April 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

How can you be against the OPTION to be able to flip it at the will of the user? I don't understand this mindset.

You can default it to the way it is now, to accommodate people who like it as it is, but what harm does it add to have the ability to support the option to flip the displays at the action of the pilot?

It's only counter-intuitive and messes with YOUR perception (and that's a valid opinion, you would never use the option to flip the design) But why are people so wanton to leave out features that could help persons other than themselves, especially when the suggested change doesn't affect their experience in the slightest?

I want to answer your question with what I see as a good passage on the "creeping options". It's from a Wastelands 2 forum, taken from this particular post. I have pretty much nothing to add to the Gabriel77Dan's words:

Quote

Quote

Well I will say again that I definitely think it should be optional.

"Hey, how about not actually 'dying', but just being knocked unconsceous? Optional of course!"

"Hey, how about re-rolling your character? Optional of course!"

"Hey, how about being able to build a town? Optional of course!"

"Hey, how about a lockpicking minigame? Optional of course!"

"Hey, how about a quest compass? Optional of course!"

"Hey, how about fog of war? Optional of course!"

"Hey, how about limited saving? Optional of course!"

"Hey, how about randomized loot? Optional of course!"

Coming, 2013, Options: The Game!

Optional this optional that, seems to be the solution for a lot of people.
It's easy to narrow down on one thing and go "Yeah I suppose it could work if it's optional." Though if you look at the grand scheme of things, how many things should be optional? How many times is the compromise gonna be "Yeah let's have it be optional!" ? It sounds like an ideal solution at first, those who want it can have it and those who don't can ignore it or turn it off.
But this isn't Options: The Game, we can't/shouldn't have hundreds of options to customize the game.
I'd say you wait for a mod to be released for this after the game has been released.
But using "it can be optional" is becoming less apetizing(?) each time I hear it.

Think about it. How is the game gonna play like if we have hundreds of checkboxes in the Options Menu?
How is the game gonna play if there is no structure that it's designed along?
How easily is the game gonna be abused and exploited or even broken by the massive amounts of tweaking options?

"Oh but this is just one small thing."
Yeah, and so are a lot of other suggestions too.
Pile them together and suddenly they stop being small things and become a massive clusterf***
Nothing makes your optional suggestion any more important than the other optional suggestions.
If they include yours then why should the other optional suggestions be excluded?

Just saying, this isn't Options: The Game, it's Wasteland 2.

He speaks about Wasteland 2 but in MWO we often see the same "optional this, optional that" approach when it come to finding a compromise in our forum discussions. Design decisions should not be based on optionality, the game should have integrity at it's core, be it a gameplay balance or player UI.

[Aegis Kleais]

Siilk, on 19 April 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

I want to answer your question with what I see as a good passage on the "creeping options". It's from a Wastelands 2 forum, taken from this particular post. I have pretty much nothing to add to the Gabriel77Dan's words:



He speaks about Wasteland 2 but in MWO we often see the same "optional this, optional that" approach when it come to finding a compromise in our forum discussions. Design decisions should not be based on optionality, the game should have integrity at it's core, be it a gameplay balance or player UI.

Your example is a textbook case of Reductio ad Absurdum.

In short, it takes a legitimate reasoning and then blows individual aspects of that reasoning vastly out of proportion in order to feign a logical proving point to the original.

The suggestion I offered comes to down a user-based preference that (as suggested) did not affect anyone from a fresh install and presented the UI as seen, but provided those who wanted the suggested change an ability to go about doing so. This is NOT akin to "Asking for hundreds of options". This is NOT akin to Requesting content/function for the sheer sake of requesting.

It is not the concern of the consumer to worry about the coding requirements needed to implement a feature. The developer determines if a request seems logical enough to implement and then is responsible for making it happen. If people cheat or tweak the game, it is, again, up to the developer to code a fix for that (and ultimately the fault of the cheater/tweaker).

For a project to be successful, they cannot shun suggestions; they cannot shun progress; they cannot turn a deaf ear to the community. The community is the consumer, and a design, in part, to the way the game develops and matures. It will always be ultimately up to the developer to determine what they want to implement into their game, so shunning a person for making a mere usability suggestion might be seen as a viable course of action of the community, but hopefully never by the developer.

[Mechteric]

MaddMaxx, on 18 April 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Multiple view types is always best. I liked this type myself. Very intuitive and easily understood.

Seconded! That's exactly how I played, that way I could see better detail on exactly how damaged I was, while graphically being able to match enemies' damage. Being able to flip through different display types is the win!

[Siilk]

Aegis Kleais™, on 19 April 2012 - 05:43 AM, said:

The suggestion I offered comes to down a user-based preference that (as suggested) did not affect anyone from a fresh install and presented the UI as seen, but provided those who wanted the suggested change an ability to go about doing so. This is NOT akin to "Asking for hundreds of options". This is NOT akin to Requesting content/function for the sheer sake of requesting.

Yes, that particular suggestion is small. But so are a couple of dozens of other ones.

Quote

"Oh but this is just one small thing."
Yeah, and so are a lot of other suggestions too.
Pile them together and suddenly they stop being small things and become a massive clusterf***
Nothing makes your optional suggestion any more important than the other optional suggestions.
If they include yours then why should the other optional suggestions be excluded?

We can't see optionality as the only possible compromise. It's easy to say "make it optional" but it would be much better for the integrity of the game to go the long way and find the real compromise.

It's true that in that particular case the optionality could work but as was already said, it stacks up with other optional suggestions. I stated my opinion on the OP idea, I'm against it but I really think that if my opinion would happen to be the one of the minority, it would be better to have it completely your way, instead of "optional way" to preserve the consistency of the game design. But again, finding a real compromise would be way better.

Speaking of which.

CapperDeluxe, on 19 April 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

Seconded! That's exactly how I played, that way I could see better detail on exactly how damaged I was, while graphically being able to match enemies' damage. Being able to flip through different display types is the win!

How about leaving damage diagram as it is but adding a "target live feed" screen. Something not unlike MW3 target mech display(i.e. component damage indicators would be overlaid right on the enemy mech model), but with one main difference: live feed would only be available when you or your C3-linked team mate would have a clear LoS to the target.