Construction panel layout

[Thalatta]

Is there any reason for the construction panel to be basically 2 long lines of 10 icons, a 3rd line with a few icons, and a last empty line, all with no apparent organisation? It doesn’t look good for someone new to the game (that was my first impression).

Maybe the first 3 rows could be used for “normal” structures (those that civs tend to have in common), where icons would have a fixed place, and the last row for “special” ones (unique, or almost, and the wonder). The 1st row could be (mostly!) economic structures (resource oriented), the 2nd civil (what's left at the end, even when techs can influence military things, etc), and the 3rd military (that produce units that do damage, or do damage themselves). The 4th row would be ordered first with economic, then civil and then military structures. This looks better and also the fixed places on the first 3 rows help noticing fast what a civilisation has or lacks, in combination with checking the last row.

 

Here I’m showing an image with the “template” on the upper left, and 8 civilisations as examples (did it weeks ago, so for R27).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

8 hours ago, Thalatta said:

Is there any reason for the construction panel to be basically 2 long lines of 10 icons

The tone here is incorrect. Sometimes things don't get designed efficiently because people focus on other things. 

 

I do like the idea of 'standard' positions for things though. 

[Thalatta]

19 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

The tone here is incorrect. Sometimes things don't get designed efficiently because people focus on other things.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the tone", it was an honest question :P, I was thinking maybe the way it's coded made harder to position and order that, and maybe there was a reason to be coded like that, like if it was easier if things were constantly changing, and not worth any arrangement right now. Or if an alternative panel was being worked on already.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

28 minutes ago, Thalatta said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "the tone", it was an honest question

I think the tone was that it was a deliberate choice or design decision. It was not.  Or, rather, the decision was "good enough for now" several years ago. 

[chrstgtr]

Icons get smaller or you increase the bottom panel size, which would decrease field vision

You could probably change this with a mod if you really cared about it 

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

13 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Icons get smaller or you increase the bottom panel size, which would decrease field vision

You could probably change this with a mod if you really cared about it 

I think they just want a standard layout for the icons as they currently exist.

[Thalatta]

5 hours ago, chrstgtr said:

You could probably change this with a mod if you really cared about it 

I care about how neat it looks like for someone just starting the game, considering how those panels look like in other games. So a mod wouldn't do

[DesertRose]

Create a gitea account and push your changes to the repository. Little cumbersome to set up, but it would be sad to see this change not lasting.

[guerringuerrin]

If you don’t know how, here are some basics to get you started. 

[Thalatta]

Ah, wait. I think you think I coded something. Sadly, no, it was just image editing.

But I'll get into it at some point. I'm just not very fond of pushing changes, considering all the open tickets I've read there are, most of my proposals are just "what do you think about this?" first, not "this is incorrect, in fact, a bug"  (with very few exceptions).