Health Display Concept

[sparhawk]

Still, I hope we're goign to make it so the weapon icon only comes up while you're selecting weapons and then disapears very quickly again, as with the item icons and the health bar.

That will be the default behaviour. Only the icons do not disappear but they shrink.

[sparhawk]

1) My version (fix the size of the font before posting a gameplay screen)

2) oDD/Spring's version

3) Light gem and health bar in middle, with left-mouse weapon in left corner of screen and right-mouse weapon in right corner of screen.

Well, so we need screenshots from all this versions and post them up for a poll.

[sparhawk]

However: Putting the items right beside condensed compass+lightgem+healthbar seems to increase the likelyhood that all of this will actual block out something on the screen that we want to see (meaning we'll have to angle down to see it... breaking teh immersion!!11 )

I don't know what's up with all you talking about immerison breaking. ALL games have some HUDs. Most modern games have even bigger HUDs than the two or three things we show on our screen. And I never heard a complaint anywhere that this is immeriosn breaking just because you can't see a tiny spot on your screen.

 

 

MAN! WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT RESOLUTIONS OF 320x256 AS THEY WERE IN THE DAYS OF DOOM 1/2 !

 

The lightgem and the icons will take less then 1% of your screen estate and that in a spot where you don't focus all the time so stop acting everybody as if it were of utmost importance to reduce the cluttering of the screen!

[sparhawk]

What kind of retards are you expecting our fanbase to be?

What kind of retards can not accept that other people have other preferences? I wnat the icon to be seen all the time. And it's not because I can't keep track of it, it's because I LIKE IT THAT WAY!

[Ishtvan]

It's not so much worry about "cluttering" as choosing between "long object in center of screen" and "medium sized object in center of screen + 2 small objects in corners" fact is, I look at the center more than the corners. Yes, there have been times in T2 even when I had to change my angle while watching AI far below because the lightgem blocked them. It was annoying. Then before NH's mod there was the T3 godzilla lightgem from hell.

[sparhawk]

Oh, if they fade to very transparent then I guess I coud live with having them up close like that.  If they stay visible tho I'd prefer to have them in the corners, just because stuff you want to look at in detail is usually in the center, and putting HUD stuff there could be distracting (imagine trying to look down from a high place and follow a bunch of guards patrolling at different vertical levels on your screen)

Yeah. I can really understand that. Because of my brain desease I also can't really look at the center of the screen, so my view is also usually focussed on the bottom line of the monitor. What a good explanation that is. Oh! I forgot! It owuld be immersion breaking when I have to adjust my view to something I want to follow. Just like in real life. When something is in the way of my vision, I usually don't move to a better position, I rather make that thing smaller.

[Ishtvan]

Listen closely as I divulge my ninja stealth secrets

 

When watching the patrol routes of several AI at the same time, one may have to *gasp* use your peripheral vision (err.. the monitor is so small anyway I wouldn't even call it peripheral vision, let's just say "look at the whole picture" while focusing on one point). This way, you can see the AI at the top of your vision, and the AI at the bottom of your vision at the same time.

 

Unless some object is taking up 1/4 of your view right where that AI is walking. Then you have to angle down to see him, and you can't see the one at the top anymore, and you have to angle back up. FPS(neakers) already compress human vision to a fraction of what it is in RL by putting it on a monitor... no reason to make it worse with an obstructive HUD.

[sparhawk]

I would agree IF WE HAD an OBSTRUCTIVE HUD. We don't. Having two icons and the lightgem at the bottom can hardly be called obstructive. And this example of yours is 1) VERY specific to a specific situation and not really a standard situation and 2) you have the same problem in real life. If your cone of vision is not broad enough to keep two parties in view you have to *gasp* turn your head as well. In *gasp* REAL LIFE!

[Ishtvan]

What I'm saying is: putting the items at the side is pushing it in terms of size of 1 object. The larger the central object is, the more likely it is to block something out in the center (where people are usually looking, be it high up center or low down center). I think that's why a lot of HUDs put things at the corners. You don't often rely on looking at the corners of your screen, but I often like to see the whole center swath.

 

It's also a priority issue: lightgem in the middle, where your eyes usually are looking: high priority information. Items at the corners: low priority information.. you don't need to check what items you have ALL the time, so you might as well put them somewhere you don't usually look at but can glance at quickly. The center (whole center swath I would argue) is somewhere you look at pretty much all the time. Why put relatively low priority indicators there?

 

Another example of using the bottom center of the screen is seeing what surface you're walking on. Say there's a line of carpet on a tile floor, and you want to look up and watch AI's (who might even be higher up than you), but also in your "peripheral" vision make sure that you're not drifting off the carpet so you don't make a loud noise.

 

Again I'm fine with the lightgem+health bar + compass combo in the center because it's pretty compact. Adding item icons on either side of that tho is pushing it IMO.

[Ishtvan]

About turning your head in real life... the monitor is already heavily view compressed/cropped so that you have to "turn" with the mouse WAY more than you would in real life, where you have a much wider view cone. Why make this limitation of games even worse by putting a larger object in the "high priority" zone of the center?

[sparhawk]

I don't have a problem with putting them on the side or in the center. Springs and Odds mockup look pretty good and I have no strong feelings to either one, but I think it is a pretty lame argument to haggle about screen occupation as if we have hundreds of icons occluding the screen.

[Ishtvan]

I'm not saying the screen is heavily occluded, just saying I'm worried that we put something in the center, and then the items on either side of that increase the length of that thing by maybe 80%

 

I don't really care that much either, just voicing an opinion of why we should at least make putting items in the corners an option.

[sparhawk]

It's not as if this can not be changed. Anybody can change it within a matter of a few minutes. Just change the coordinates of the items and everythign works as before with only the placement changed. That's exactly what NH's minimalist project is doing to T3, so I don't see a need for a lengthy discussion on this. We want it to look good and being functional. That is the case. We can vote of which should go intot eh offical release, but there is no reason why we can't put the other version up as well, because this is such a simple change, and there are bound to be people who might want to create a HUD which looks exactly like T1/T2 HUD. So it's not as if this would be an all or nothing decision.

[Darkness_Falls]

Sparhawk - It's a lengthy discussion because everyone has their very specific and opinionated reasons for wanting the toolset to arrive prepackaged the way they like it. There are many legit arguments in this thread.

 

If there wasn't such a need for lengthy discussion on this, you maybe wouldn't have written about 8 of the last 18 posts here.

 

I'm not sure where you think Ishtvan was being unrealistic; they were all legitimate concerns and make a lot of sense. Bottom line is that a cluster of small icons in the bottom center of the screen would become, essentially, one large object -- obscuring more than if those small icons were separated out between 3 points: lower-left, center and lower-right. When we test, it may not be that bad, but it is a very valid observation for Ish to take note of. No, we don't have hundreds of HUD icons. But the Minimalist Project was made for a reason; we have to respect those reasons.

 

Being thoughtful to usability decisions things like this will help our final product be more polished. It will show users that we care about (and maybe thought a long time about) the pros and cons of every design decision; rather than just implementing knee-jerk reaction features and icons.

 

Are you glad there are big weapon-select gears in T3? Or that T3 loot percentages were initially going to be big fonts popping up smack dab in the center of your view? Or that you fall of ledges in T3 when trying to peek around a corner? More care and thought about these things would've shown us they cared more about usability for us.

 

I figure this thread will be unnecessarily closed soon by the powers that be, so I wanted to get my two cents in. I must say I'm not a huge fan of closing threads. Seems childish. Almost like, "I'm done talking about this with you."

[Domarius]

Well so far no mod has done it that way. They've been giving about 2 or 3 days after it looks like its not within the first milestone before they locked anything. I like it that way, I wouldn't want it to get any more strict than that.

[New Horizon]

I've rarely seen a thread closed for reasons other than, we'll discuss it after the first milestone...and those ideas in the threads that were shut down are documented for later discussion. I've worked in situations where there was no "later" discussion, you just ate it and that was it.

 

Discussion is generally good when it goes somewhere and it does show we care when the day is through. Yet, there are times when we also shouldn't keep turning a topic in circles.

 

No system is perfect but it's there for a reason.

 

At any rate, we'll see more clearly when we playtest everything. I can't see anything we've come up with equalling the monstrous hud that was TDS.

[sparhawk]

If there wasn't such a need for lengthy discussion on this, you maybe wouldn't have written about 8 of the last 18 posts here.

 

We already had lenghty discussions with similar length where there was NO need for it, if people would read design documents. But then they complain that they are "to much to read". Well, this forum is not for discussion as a selfserving posting forum, this forum is a development board. This means we are discussing stuff that is relevant to get the job done, not because we need another vent for big words.

 

I'm not sure where you think Ishtvan was being unrealistic; they were all legitimate concerns and make a lot of sense.  Bottom line is that a cluster of small icons in the bottom center of the screen would become, essentially, one large object -- obscuring more than if those small icons were separated out between 3 points: lower-left, center and lower-right.

 

When you look at the screenshot you can already see that it does NOT take up that much screen estate. So it is useless to worry what might be or might not when we can either already see it, or can't sufficiently decide it with a screenshot. It is one thing to decide the layout with such mockups and another to get usabillity from a screenshot. Because that doesn't work. So discussion endlessly if this or that might work or if that pixel obscures the view can only be decided with an in-game test and any discussion about this is pointless. It's quite similar to making theoretical optimizations.

 

When we test, it may not be that bad, but it is a very valid observation for Ish to take note of.  No, we don't have hundreds of HUD icons.  But the Minimalist Project was made for a reason; we have to respect those reasons.

 

Right. And until we can see it in action, it is a waste of time to discuss it, because it boils down to waiting for the ingame test.

 

Being thoughtful to usability decisions things like this will help our final product be more polished.  It will show users that we care about (and maybe thought a long time about) the pros and cons of every design decision; rather than just implementing knee-jerk reaction features and icons. 

 

Endusers will look ath the final product. Not wether we spent 10 pages of discussion why the colour of Garretts eyes should be green instead of pink.

 

Are you glad there are big weapon-select gears in T3?  Or that T3 loot percentages were initially going to be big fonts popping up smack dab in the center of your view?  Or that you fall of ledges in T3 when trying to peek around a corner?  More care and thought about these things would've shown us they cared more about usability for us.

 

Right. Which boils down to what? To playtesting. Exactly. Because if they would have discussed their usuabillity in endless discussions, they would still have a crap endresult (maybe not, pure chance) and we wouldn't even nkow it because we would observe the same thing.

 

I figure this thread will be unnecessarily closed soon by the powers that be, so I wanted to get my two cents in.  I must say I'm not a huge fan of closing threads.  Seems childish.  Almost like, "I'm done talking about this with you."

 

My 9yr old daughter also uses this non-argument when she wants to ask something delicate. "I don't ask because I know anyway that you will say no." Well, if the answer is already known then why bother to ask. Similarly, we should lock the thread down because you constantly ask for it.

 

And there is a reason why we started this practice. because we already had endless discussions about things that were also endlessly discussed only weeks before until it cropped up again. As we have a goal to achieve, namely to finish the darkmod project, we are not here to engange in discussions as our primary goal, we are here to finish that project. Therefore we have to focus on the tasks at hand. And these tasks are there to see for everybody in the design document forum and is named Milestone. These are the feature which have priority, in order to get this mod into something usable and not make it one of the thousands of community projects which dye down because there is no focus on the target.

 

And in case you didn't notice it. The threads are NOT locked down to stiffle the ideas and only allow the select leadership to voice their ideas. The threads are locked down and recorded in a special thread, which we use for the next milestone to discuss which features should be going in there, and which features are good enough ideas to be remembered but have no priority right now.

[sparhawk]

I've rarely seen a thread closed for reasons other than, we'll discuss it after the first milestone...and those ideas in the threads that were shut down are documented for later discussion. I've worked in situations where there was no "later" discussion, you just ate it and that was it.

You can even look at mods which plan out everything from the start and how far they get. This is a feasable and good approach for commercial projects, but this doesn't really work well for such community projects like such a mod is. The reason is pretty simple, because the fluctuation of teammembers is much higher than in a commercial project. I must say I'm pretty surprised, that we have gathered such a big team and even keep it for so long. Many mods have a much smaller core team, so I gather with our "strict moderation" of locking threads down to keep the focus, we are not doing THAT bad.

[Darkness_Falls]

You've managed to pretty much miss my points on most counts and illogically reply to most of them, as well. But that's cool; you weren't my only audience. PS: I don't think I've ever asked for a thread to be locked.

[oDDity]

This childish bickering doesn't help to strengthen the team any, that's for sure.

[Darkness_Falls]

Ahemm... Dude, are you kidding?? LOL At least you made me smile

Edited March 16, 2005 by Darkness_Falls