Enrique Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 I don't find it intrusive at all, considering that sorting them will be difficult to achieve in all civs. Another solution could be some kind of colour indications around the edges or in the glow, but that will really be intrusive :/By the way you have to tell me how can I access to phase IV 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pureon Posted January 30, 2013 Report Share Posted January 30, 2013 I'll leave it to you guys to decide on the solution then.I think more people were in favour of the icons than against, so the matter is very much still open to alternative ideas and discussion.To reiterate wraitti's comment, why clutter the UI with an additional 17+- pieces of information (each phase icon) when simply hovering over each structure's icon reveals everything the user needs to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmhibbs Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 I also agree that it is unnecessary to clutter the UI with additonal icons when the problem is only a learning curve issue. Very quickly you figure out what buildings are in each phase. If you need to, hovering tells you. Also, the buildings in the future phases are grayed out, so you can ignore them untill you get to the next phase.However, it would help to know how many buildings you still need. Just like the tool tip tells you how many more resources are needed to get to the next phase, why can't we tell the same thing about buildings - how many more do I need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoot Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 However, it would help to know how many buildings you still need. Just like the tool tip tells you how many more resources are needed to get to the next phase, why can't we tell the same thing about buildings - how many more do I need?Like this? http://www.wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=16460entry249534 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted January 31, 2013 Report Share Posted January 31, 2013 I think more people were in favour of the icons than against, so the matter is very much still open to alternative ideas and discussion.To reiterate wraitti's comment, why clutter the UI with an additional 17+- pieces of information (each phase icon) when simply hovering over each structure's icon reveals everything the user needs to know.The UI is already very simple. Phase icon overlays would "clutter" the UI about +1%. The important thing is to convey the information clearly and simply. What I am weary of is cluttering the tooltips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enrique Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Perhaps Carthage would not suddenly have access to all embassies at one phase. Instead when the player begins, he or she chooses to have one available at the village phase, selects another upon opting to research town phase, and unlocks the last automatically. That could give them a bit of a Age of Mythology/Age of Empires III feel and would give it more symmetry. This is actually a nice Idea, but it should be giving one at phase II and the other two at phase III. This way the icons could fit in each row. I don't know if there's any other civ who has more buildings than space on each row/phase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lion.Kanzen Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) This is actually a nice Idea, but it should be giving one at phase II and the other two at phase III. This way the icons could fit in each row. I don't know if there's any other civ who has more buildings than space on each row/phase. Tip of day, or arrow point with "?" to player know how play, and Embed the videos for a Tutorial "learn to play room, where the player can see tutorial videos in the game without exit to the game".Other Suggestion is implement the Tech tree, but for Technical reasons i don't no if can be interactive/dynamic or static. i like Pureons Tech tree Design, clear too much question, only with see it.http://i.imgur.com/DEcfcpT.jpg Edited February 1, 2013 by Lion.Kanzen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 This is actually a nice Idea, but it should be giving one at phase II and the other two at phase III. This way the icons could fit in each row. I don't know if there's any other civ who has more buildings than space on each row/phase.We should not change the game design in order to accommodate the GUI. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Yet should we not change the game design if it benefits the gameplay in addition to the GUI? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted February 1, 2013 Report Share Posted February 1, 2013 Yet should we not change the game design if it benefits the gameplay in addition to the GUI?If one wants to change the game design in some way, their reasoning should be in regards to the gameplay itself. The GUI should be changed to match the gameplay. Even then, I'm not convinced that splitting up the embassies into different phases is a real gameplay bonus. You get 1 embassy in Town, then 2 in City or something like that? Why? Make an argument for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I suppose that my argument for its addition would be it would help with making the game more replay able. If each embassy is given more unique aspects such as a useful technology of some kind the player would be given interesting strategic options from one game situation to the next. Otherwise, I cannot find any other thing that would cause it to be very different from how it is now. In that sense, the game design would hardly change, and the change which would occur would be quite subtle. As far as I see, no has shown any drawback to adding it; still, I merely wish to convey that doing this could improve the gameplay. It seemed a matter worth defending as there was no strong opposition to the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted February 2, 2013 Report Share Posted February 2, 2013 I suppose that my argument for its addition would be it would help with making the game more replay able. If each embassy is given more unique aspects such as a useful technology of some kind the player would be given interesting strategic options from one game situation to the next. Otherwise, I cannot find any other thing that would cause it to be very different from how it is now. In that sense, the game design would hardly change, and the change which would occur would be quite subtle. As far as I see, no has shown any drawback to adding it; still, I merely wish to convey that doing this could improve the gameplay. It seemed a matter worth defending as there was no strong opposition to the idea.Yeah, but what does that have to do with changing their phase availability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorfinn the Shallow Minded Posted February 3, 2013 Report Share Posted February 3, 2013 The person would have to decide which they would wish to benefit from first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.