Most difficult civ for you

[guerringuerrin]

@AtrikYour alternative is so much cleaner and easy to read than this:
 

23 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

 

 

Edited Saturday at 23:16 by guerringuerrin

[Atrik]

14 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

@AtrikYour alternative is so much cleaner and easy to read than this:

Thanks @guerringuerrin. The previous iteration wasn't satisfactory because it didn't help that much to estimate upgrade levels.
I think I much more prefer it now and I think it's easy to read. (on screenshots you don't see the cursors but each tooltip correspond to the stat you hover ofc)

 

[guerringuerrin]

19 minutes ago, Atrik said:

Thanks @guerringuerrin. The previous iteration wasn't satisfactory because it didn't help that much to estimate upgrade levels.
I think I much more prefer it now and I think it's easy to read. (on screenshots you don't see the cursors but each tooltip correspond to the stat you hover ofc)

 

Let me describe it to see if I understood it correctly:

The Bow of this archer has 7.2 of base Damage + 1.1 Damage from the first Ranged Attack damage (15%). I asume if you research the second Pierce damage, the % bonus will be higher

It also has a base Pierce Resistance of 1 + 2 from two Pierce Resistance upgrades researched.

 

EDIT: also the 6.6 we see in the sword next to the portrait is the real DPS of the Bow, as it has an interval of 1.25 second. That's a boonGUI legacy feature

Edited Sunday at 13:59 by guerringuerrin

[Atrik]

15 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Let me describe it to see if I understood it correctly:

The Bow of this archer has 7.2 of base Damage + 1.1 Damage from the first Ranged Attack damage (15%). I asume if you research the second Pierce damage, the % bonus will be higher

It also has a base Pierce Resistance of 1 + 2 from two Pierce Resistance upgrades researched.

 

EDIT: also the 6.6 we see in the sword next to the portrait is the real DPS of the Bow, as it has an interval of 1.25 second. That's a boonGUI legacy feature

Yes all correct, however if you feel like double checking is that because it's not that intuitive? 

[Atrik]

I don't know if/how I could do better without adding text (that would ultimately make the tooltip less readable overall...).

[guerringuerrin]

4 minutes ago, Atrik said:

Yes all correct, however if you feel like double checking is that because it's not that intuitive? 

Haha

Keep in mind that I'm barely familiar with 0 A.D.'s numbers. I've always found them very hard to read, and in general, I'm pretty lazy when it comes to numbers.

If you don’t mind, I’ll get a bit picky and suggest the following changes.

Damage
Bow: 7.2 (+1.1) Pierce
Bonus: 15%
Interval: 1.25 seconds

“Damage per Second” doesn’t really make sense in the context of the tooltip. I’d also remove the indentation or just use a single level. In the case of the damage tooltip, double indentation only adds confusion.

I’d also try this alternative layout which I find better than the first :
Bow Damage
7.2 (+1.1) Pierce
15% Bonus
1.25s Interval

Or:

Damage
Bow
7.2 (+1.1) Pierce
15% Bonus
1.25s Interval

I think these layouts improve readability and allow the player to quickly understand the structure of the tooltip.

1 minute ago, guerringuerrin said:

Damage
Bow
7.2 (+1.1) Pierce
15% Bonus
1.25s Interval

And the third one is my favourite

[Atrik]

8 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Damage
Bow
7.2 (+1.1) Pierce
15% Bonus
1.25s Interval

This seems that it can look better, I'll try!

 

4 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

“Damage per Second” doesn’t really make sense in the context of the tooltip.  I’d also remove the indentation or just use a single level. In the case of the damage tooltip, double indentation only adds confusion.

You don't see the cursor, but, this is the header of the tooltip because you are currently hovering the Damage Per Second stat.
Then, you get the breakdown so first indent. Then a second indent because it is a breakdown of the attack. So I think It's how it makes the more sens.

[guerringuerrin]

3 minutes ago, Atrik said:

You don't see the cursor, but, this is the header of the tooltip because you are currently hovering the Damage Per Second stat.
Then, you get the breakdown so first indent. Then a second indent because it is a breakdown of the attack. So I think It's how it makes the more sens.

Yeah I'm aware of that! Still feels off in the context of the tooltip.

3 minutes ago, Atrik said:

Then, you get the breakdown so first indent. Then a second indent because it is a breakdown of the attack. So I think It's how it makes the more sens.

If you want to keep the indentation, I feel like only two indents would be better than three

 

[Atrik]

1 hour ago, guerringuerrin said:

If you want to keep the indentation, I feel like only two indents would be better than three

There there, you were right, too much indents . I tried few things around your suggestions and that's what I think is best. Added some details for buildings too so that it's easier to differentiate base arrows and arrows from garrison too. Thoughts?

[guerringuerrin]

1 hour ago, Atrik said:

Thoughts?

 

I'd still group the Bonus Damage with the weapon section and remove "per Second" but I guess there are some limitations for that? 

You could change "bonus" for "Bonus" to match text format 
But anyways, comparing both versions the new one looks so much cleaner now. 

 

Nice work!

 

I guess in the case of Resistance I would do:
Pierce Resistance Level
1 (+2) Pierce Resistance Points
27% Bonus Resistance

or the other way 
Pierce Resistance Level
27% Bonus Resistance
1 (+2) Pierce Resistance Points

which would match much more the Damage tooltip stats order. And adding "against pierce attacks" seems redundant as it's already specified in the tooltip's title

Regarding amount of text, I think that as long as you keep a clear layout of each attribute's values (like in this case), adding descriptions at the end of the tooltip contributes to a more detailed understanding of the different combat stats.

Edited Sunday at 17:46 by guerringuerrin

[Atrik]

43 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

I'd still group the Bonus Damage with the weapon section and remove "per Second"

I don't understand why. That would be rather confusing, the tooltip should start by describing what is the element you are hovering, and in this case it's the DPS.

43 minutes ago, guerringuerrin said:

Regarding amount of text, I think that as long as you keep a clear layout of each attribute's values (like in this case), adding descriptions at the end of the tooltip contributes to a more detailed understanding of the different combat stats.

Agree, but I was talking about trying to reduce the texts on the lines where stats are displayed, the small description below ofc aren't a diminishing the readability. 

I would prefer not call the damage reduction % be called "Bonus Resistance" to not be confused with a bonus like in dps, but indeed "Resistance to Pierce attack" is maybe not the best, so i named it "Hack Damage Reduction". It's rather obvious anyways that it is a reduction from incoming attacks.

It might not be that obvious that the (+1) here is the bonus, however if i try to any variation of : 3 Base (+1 Bonus) Hack Resistance Points it becomes ugly... So I think I'll leave it like this and hope I'll pass the@guerringuerrin validation 

Edited Sunday at 18:27 by Atrik

[guerringuerrin]

9 minutes ago, Atrik said:

I don't understand why. 

My point is the tooltip isn't actually describing the DPS — it's describing the unit's combat stats. 7.2 (+1.1) damage at 1.25 second intervals. At no point does it show the calculation based on the damage dealt in one second (the 6.6 shown the hovering element) BUT...

16 minutes ago, Atrik said:

That would be rather confusing, the tooltip should start by describing what is the element you are hovering, and in this case it's the DPS.

...I get your point here. Makes sense.

17 minutes ago, Atrik said:

I would prefer not call the damage reduction % be called "Bonus Resistance" to not be confused with a bonus like in dps, but indeed "Resistance to Pierce attack" is maybe not the best, so i named it "Hack Damage Reduction". It's rather obvious anyways that it is a reduction from incoming attacks.

Hack Damage Reduction seems a good choice 

18 minutes ago, Atrik said:

It might not be that obvious that the (+1) here is the bonus, however if i try to any variation of : 3 Base (+1 Bonus) Hack Resistance Points it becomes ugly... So I think I'll leave it like this and hope I'll pass the@guerringuerrin validation 

Yeah it's pretty the same way as aoe2 shows it but using brackets. It's not that obvious but I agree with you: let's avoid cluttered ugliness  
Your hopes has been heard.

@vanz sorry for flood your thread with off-topic discussion 
 

[BreakfastBurrito_007]

On 25/07/2025 at 3:42 PM, guerringuerrin said:

aoe2 example.

U got Damage + Damage Upgrades
Melee Armor+Upgrades/Range Armor+Upgrades

This is an example for the opposite point because in aoe2 there are lots of different hidden stats per unit that aren't shown. Its actually a great system to only show the basic stats of the unit, because showing all the stats would take up too much space and cloud out critical basic stats that can change with upgrades. Players in aoe2 actually learn the massive variety of different unit and civ specific bonuses and technology effects without having to see them. For example the light cav doesn't say that it has +10 versus monks which is essential for gameplay, but players simply learn this by doing (or looking at wikis/tutorials). 

Edited 9 hours ago by BreakfastBurrito_007

[guerringuerrin]

1 hour ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

This is an example for the opposite point because in aoe2 there are lots of different hidden stats per unit that aren't shown. Its actually a great system to only show the basic stats of the unit, because showing all the stats would take up too much space and cloud out critical basic stats that can change with upgrades. 

I'd say going from this:

To this:

Is definitely an improvement in that direction

[Atrik]

I prefer that the more stats possible are displayed and not having some hidden.
But @guerringuerrin indeed, It would be nice to not look like in this meme you posted every time you need to figure out what is the stats of a unit, or how much upgrades enemy has. 

Quote

Trying to check enemy’s military tech 

And the tooltip with the 40 stats vomit could/is still available, just the breakdowns are much faster to read / easier to understand.

[TheCJ]

I like the way vanilla does it. You dont need to know any damage or resistance numbers, really.

Atleast not of your own units while playing. Either you know how to use your units, then that knowledge is way more useful than a damage stat, or you dont, in which case the stat wont really help you.

And you shouldnt see your enemies upgrades anyway. If anything, you should find out about them by doing some sort of spy tech.

So not showing the units stats at all is perfectly fine, and having the option to look at a breakdown of all stats is useful if you want to strategy-craft, make balance-change mods or just calculate stuff for fun.

[Deicide4u]

6 hours ago, guerringuerrin said:

To this:

Is definitely an improvement in that direction

1) Does the number beside the sword icon show the current total damage, or some derivative stat like DPS? It should show all damage types, because of the way damage reduction is calculated in 0 A.D. Example:
(sword icon) 3.8 (arrow icon) 6.0

On mouse hover:
Damage:
3.0 + 0.8  hack / 5.0 + 1.0 pierce

This way, we can also show upgrades cleanly, without cluttering the UI.

2) Movement speed stat is redundant here, no need to show it on combat stats.
3) The icons that are showing resistance levels should look a bit nicer. Too much blue. Perhaps it could look better like this:
(gray armor icon similar to AoE2 or AoM) 4/4/15

On mouse hover over the armor icon:
Resistance:
3+1 hack (34%) / 3+1 pierce (34%) / 15 crush (79%)

 

41 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

I like the way vanilla does it. You dont need to know any damage or resistance numbers, really.

You don't need to know it by the time you've learned the game. But new players need to know, and even one of the veterans didn't know about the hack damage of halberdiers.

So, more obvious display of stats is desirable.

Edited 2 hours ago by Deicide4u
Fixed the possible UI layout a bit

[TheCJ]

35 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

But new players need to know, and even one of the veterans didn't know about the hack damage of halberdiers

Do new players need to know? And do you think not knowing about the hack damage of halbs made the veteran play worse?

[Deicide4u]

Going by your logic, we don't need to show anything.

Let's just play the game blindly and have fun, ey?

[TheCJ]

What is much more desireable is a short description of their role in combat (if there isnt one already? Would the encyclopedia contain smt like this? I dont know tbh).

Like "The Spearman is a versatile melee unit especially strong against cavalry, but weak against siege units.", "The pikeman is a heavily armoured melee unit with relatively low damage but long range.", "The Swordsman is an offensive melee unit with high damage but a short range. It excels at taking out siege."

Much more useful for new players.

[TheCJ]

3 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

Going by your logic, we don't need to show anything.

Let's just play the game blindly and have fun, ey?

Well, the art is nice. But we could remove every number (resistance, percentage, gather rate) from the players view and it would not matter too much

[Deicide4u]

24 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

What is much more desireable is a short description of their role in combat (if there isnt one already? Would the encyclopedia contain smt like this? I dont know tbh).

Like "The Spearman is a versatile melee unit especially strong against cavalry, but weak against siege units.", "The pikeman is a heavily armoured melee unit with relatively low damage but long range.", "The Swordsman is an offensive melee unit with high damage but a short range. It excels at taking out siege."

I actually agree with you here. The game had some tips in earlier alphas that had listed counters for every unit, but never descriptive text like in AoE2 games.

21 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

But we could remove every number (resistance, percentage, gather rate) from the players view and it would not matter too much

Also, we had this in early alphas. The gather rates, in particular, were shown just as "Bonus in gathering food" for females and "Bonuses in gathering wood, stone and metal" for male soldiers in the tooltips.

Maybe we can return to those days of showing the bare minimum of stats, but told the info in tooltips? In any case, it needs to be consistent with the overall UI design.

Edited 1 hour ago by Deicide4u

[Atrik]

49 minutes ago, Deicide4u said:

1) Does the number beside the sword icon show the current total damage, or some derivative stat like DPS? It should show the former.
2) Movement speed stat is redundant here, no need to show it on combat stats.
3) The icons that are showing resistance levels should look a bit nicer. Too much blue. Perhaps it could look better like this:

1)Yes the sword icon and number display dps.
2)Why Redundant would mean it's displayed elsewhere? I like to have it clear when some units are trying to chase others (like cavs) to see if enemy have a speed bonus, or just base unit movement.
3)The screenshots scale the icons a bit. In game they look perfect for me.

That being said, the stats calculated and displayed here are from base template and unit state. This means you, or anyone could extract theses parts of ModernGUI and tweak/play around with it, without having to import too much of it's code. Probably easier then starting from the vanilla panel if you have an idea of what you want to do.

 

16 minutes ago, TheCJ said:

But we could remove every number (resistance, percentage, gather rate) from the players view and it would not matter too much

@TheCJ I hate when a games hide stats.  Feels like they think your too dumb to compare numbers. In mods like Historical I would go crazy if I couldn't read stats, and having fast/easy way to understand the stats are even more critical.

 

[Deicide4u]

8 hours ago, BreakfastBurrito_007 said:

For example the light cav doesn't say that it has +10 versus monks which is essential for gameplay, but players simply learn this by doing

Or learn by just reading the tooltip that says that Light Cavalry does bonus damage to monks?

[chrstgtr]

1 hour ago, Atrik said:

I prefer that the more stats possible are displayed and not having some hidden.

1 hour ago, TheCJ said:

So not showing the units stats at all is perfectly fine

Yeah, I never look at stats in game. But making them completely hidden, including on the structure tree is just hiding the ball. It's something that is frustrating about some techs like the Mace Silver Shield. I shouldn't need to go into the directory to understand how different units differ from one another or how a tech impacts units. This is especially annoying when stats like spread (accuracy) or projectile velocity vary from one unit (or building) to another. There's literally no reason for it