Abusing the reticule

[Per]

So here is an idea I had. The problem I'm trying to solve is where to put additional buttons in the user interface, which are sorely needed, such as those for 'attack' and 'hold'. Some people need the buttons, since they cannot remember the hotkeys. Others such as myself need to learn such hotkeys from buttons. (And some cannot even use all the current hotkeys, such as alt-clicking.) After experimenting a bit with adding buttons to the right of the reticule, and hearing people object to changing the menus on top, I decided to try make the reticule itself be context sensitive to user selections. So if a user selects a truck, it could turn into this:

reticule1.jpg

(Note that this is an actual screenshot of the game played with a mod, made possible with today's last changes in the scripting interface.)

So when selecting a droid, your new reticule would have the following options (where zero is middle button, then 1 the F1 button, etc):
0 - unselect
1 - attack 'a' (or can add special ability if non-attacking unit)
2 - hold 'h'
3 - build F3 (if constructor, or can add special ability if not)
4 - patrol 'p'
5 - stop 's'
6 - guard 'g'?

I'm not sure if these are the most important buttons that should be visible when a droid is selected, but it is a place to start. A similar new reticule would pop up if selecting a building. The moment you unselect (or press the middle button), the context sensitive reticule disappears and the old familiar one comes back.

Feedback?

[Rman Virgil]

.

Elegant. Basically eliminating the need not only of Key Commands but, in a number of cases, of bringing up a seperate command UI with added engagement commands.

Take this example. Unit is set to retreat at Medium Health. Retreat where ? You can set Rally Points from the Factory for unit delivery - but after ? What if once in the battlefield you can set a Rally Point that is triggered by the unit's Retreat setting ? The possibilities....

(Edit: Thought of Elio's inspiring UI mock-up from 2009 so attatched.)

.

[stiv]

So if I have a unit selected, I need to un-select it to get to, say, the Research screen?

What happens if I have multiple units (trucks, vtols, tracks, for example) selected?

[Lord Apocalypse]

For multiples it should still work the same as the normal right click menu. At least thats my thought. I really think a new UI layout is in order so long as remains somewhat minimal as the current layout.

[Per]

So if I have a unit selected, I need to un-select it to get to, say, the Research screen?

Yes. Or press F2. Or click a research lab.

What happens if I have multiple units (trucks, vtols, tracks, for example) selected?

All other RTS games I know of solve this by having some kind of fixed ranking of what buttons will then be shown. For example, it might be more important to show the 'build' button than, say, a commander's self-destruct button (if such were to exist).

[NoQ]

Or press F2.

Which assumes moving the left hand away from ctrl+z shortcut.

Or click a research lab.

Which still means to unselect the army, but also scroll the map to your base as well.

_________________________

Another thing i'm a bit afraid of about scriptable interface is that using a more convenient gui than a default one may be regarded as cheating.

_________________________

But it doesn't mean i don't like the idea (:
It's great, need to think how exactly would we want it to be. Maybe clicking the middle button would change the mode between the usual build/research/produce and the unit commands?

[Rman Virgil]

....Maybe clicking the middle button would change the mode between the usual build/research/produce and the unit commands?

That would be exactly the way to do it, I believe as well if you invoke CTA as a valid design principle. 1+

=====>

As for a more convenient UI than default being perceieved as cheating - level playing field, as in all have the same or ...... you clearly have a choice, up front, one or the other. Transparency from the get go has to be part of the matrix.

An "unwieldy" UI design (one subverting CTA efficacy) is inherently more challenging but how exactly would that be defined as a design imperative ? **

EDIT: ** In a different context (GPM design principle but still applicable as an answer to this question of UI design) I came up with this design guideline:

......

In short, I think the player should still be responsible for the bulk of the situational awarness, velocity coordination, and that these selected basic a.i. scripts would just augment the players switch-tasking capacity (esp. between multiple fielded commanders) but not replace the players own priority Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA) in theater - as in center of gravity creation & assessment (or aforementioned situational awareness).

Must be careful to not automate too much of the decision-making that is most satisfying.

Facilitating the player's switch-tasking, as opposed to crux decision-making, provides the fundamental GP guideline, I believe.

Ref link: viewtopic.php?f=30&t=10364&hilit=Commanders
.

[Lord Apocalypse]

Another thing i'm a bit afraid of about scriptable interface is that using a more convenient gui than a default one may be regarded as cheating.

It also shows the difference between a weekend warrior and a hard core player. Could even be that the player doesn't know about X UI package or that it CAN be changed.

Best example of what can be done with a games UI (that I have played anyway, I know there are other examples...) is WoW. You can play with the stock blizzard UI or change/add just about anything into the layout. Pretty much information overload in some extreme cases. I know when running raids there are some designs that just things far easier to play that the stock UI. Same can be said for PvP. It might give hardcore players an advantage but it isn't cheating. It might not be a level playing field but some people just don't need the added clutter or functionality to play the game. I enjoy doing some pvp but I am not going to go out of my way to modify my UI to be able to pvp better.

Another point though to an expanded scriptable UI though is how much additional information that can be displayed to devs or players. Instead of using console commands you can have extra widgets displayed to track total units, total used groups, or perhaps even a tree list of what is assinged to what group or commander (selectable to either select group or display a larger widget with larger icons). You could even have an extra setup to display extra engine data for profiling (see programming gems 1 or 2)

Just don't forget about the artistic aspect though. The bare bnes WZ UI is functional but not all that pretty. It would be nice to have something that looks pretty with the same or additional information.

[Goth Zagog-Thou]

If I have a vote (are we taking votes?) I'd say let's add UI stuff to the new JS api. As I have been working with it, I'm finding it much easier to use than, say, another popularly-used language like LUA (which has its' strengths but is FAR more complicated).

Just my $0.02.

[stiv]

So if I have a unit selected, I need to un-select it to get to, say, the Research screen?

Yes. Or press F2. Or click a research lab.

I thought getting away from memorized hot keys was the purpose of this exercise.

As for clicking on a lab, I'm busy fighting a war over here. My labs are back in my base

What happens if I have multiple units (trucks, vtols, tracks, for example) selected?

All other RTS games I know of solve this by having some kind of fixed ranking of what buttons will then be shown. For example, it might be more important to show the 'build' button than, say, a commander's self-destruct button (if such were to exist).

So at a given time, there is no fixed content to the menu.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but the real solution seems like either a right-click context menu or another menu panel. Yes, I realize this is a harder problem to solve given our current GUI. But isn't it better spending our efforts solving the real problem?

[Rman Virgil]

.

* In trying to work this out in my head, I first thought on the number of reasons why I would select a bunch of mixed unit types.

1.) To move them all to a Rally Point.

2.) To make a Group.

3.) To assign them to a Commander.

4.) To assign a Target. (non-weap units ignored natch.)

5.) To assign a Fireing Range. (Ditto.)

6.) To set a Retreat Threshold.

7.) To set Waypoints.

8.) To set up a Patrol.

9.) To Guard.

10.) To Load into a Transport.

11.) To Hold a Position.

12.) Return to HQ.

- (Did I miss a directive ?)

* Then I thought that the context sensitive reticule would only be triggered if a unit or set of units was selected, otherwise it would remain stock and not be context sensitive.

* Lastly, I thought that the center reticule button could serve 2 functions depending on left or right mouse clicks, let's presume.

- One function, as already suggested, would serve to de-select the units.

- The other function could be to cycle to a third set of 6 circumferance buttons yielding a total of 12 possible group assigned directives.

Still, in the end, if you are to be inclusive of all these basic directives, and anchor them to the reticule real estate, some would require bringing up another panel. Don't see a way around that. Which is also to say that I may have taken a long thinking aloud journey to arrive at a full appreciation of stiv's last stated PoV.

.

[Per]

I thought getting away from memorized hot keys was the purpose of this exercise.

Getting away from hidden game mechanics is. Not getting away from the ability to use hot keys.

As for clicking on a lab, I'm busy fighting a war over here. My labs are back in my base

Click the middle of the reticule. Right click to unselect your units. Either will give you back your standard reticule.

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but the real solution seems like either a right-click context menu or another menu panel. Yes, I realize this is a harder problem to solve given our current GUI. But isn't it better spending our efforts solving the real problem?

Not sure if it is two or three or four years that we have discussed / worked / waited for alternative solutions involving new GUI elements, but since no solution is on the horizon for new GUI code, I'm going to see if this will work instead.

[Rman Virgil]

.

When you put it that way, I think this effort is worthwhile.

.

[Rommel]

Me I would like to be able to script formations - I have been playing a bit of Total War lately and I really like being able to set formations, ie having your archers protected behind heavy units, etc...

WZ seems to be a type of game that should be played in formations, it would be nice to be able to set a formation and have the units stick to it. Also realistically these type of tank wars were fought in formations, ie armies on the battlefields of the 20th century did not just run in all together in a big mass of tanks, etc mixed in together...