Minor modification of the quit menu

[heze]

Tired of all the people (mistakenly) self-d'ing all their units when quitting? Maybe having the option to self-d last on the menu could help. What do you think?



Patch: http://unity.shacknet.nu/~heze/spring/q ... ment.patch

[Caydr]

I'd be very much in favour of this, it confuses me sometimes what the like 17 different exiting options do exactly ^^

Maybe if it was just a tooltip thing in the bottom left? (or is that there already...)

[heze]

There are good tooltips already. Just nobody reads 'em :)

[Belmakor]

+1

Commit this patch!

[Snipawolf]

I like it

[NEWSBOT3]

lets do it :)

[colorblind]

The whole idea of the quit dialog was to get to people to resign and quit, instead of just quitting.

Only in teams games the better option would be to give your stuff to your ally. So if anything should be changed it will has to be that the "give" option should be on top in ally games.

[heze]

In team games I would prefer the leaving ally to just use Quit and then the remaining players could do ".take".

Now how many of the games are 1v1 where Resign & Quit would be the best option? 10%? Why should the quit menu favor games that are played rarely?

[heze]

Of course I could try to modify the patch so that if player count is 2, the quit menu would only contain options that cause self-d.

[colorblind]

It's not what you prefer, it's what most practical. This discussion basically comes down to the question "How dumb are newbie players?".

If we take it that allies usually have the same experience, then they're either smart enough to leave without self-d'ing and allowing the others to use .take (which the others are then smart enough to use).

Or they're not so clever and will just press the first option that comes up, which then should be the "Give" option. The remaining allies will be glad that they've recieved the units, because they also aren't so clever and didn't know of the .take command.

But in FFA games people should just self-d when they leave.

So replacing a not-so-bad situation (the current) with an equally not-so-bad one (your patch) is rather a waste of time.

You could rewrite your patch so that:
* the Give option is first when the player has active allies left (this is the case in teams games when the player isn't the last man standing of his team).
* the Resign option is first when the player has no active allies left (this is the case in teams games when the player is the last man standing, and in FFA games).

[Caydr]

"How dumb are newbie players?".

I could write an encyclopedia on this one. I count 49 emails from people asking questions relating to why TA isn't suddenly 3D when you install Spring to the same directoory.

[jcnossen]

I could write an encyclopedia on this one. I count 49 emails from people asking questions relating to why TA isn't suddenly 3D when you install Spring to the same directoory.

[Warlord Zsinj]

Well, I think the question isn't really "how dumb are noobs", but "how intuitive is our game?".

One of the biggest difficulties which new players face is the mountains of complexity that the game offers, which is great for veterans, but overwhelming for new players. Especially considering Spring is not at all "Plug in and Play", and can be quite 'rough around the edges' at times, it means that a new player can be quite boggled by the situations they face, and I know from when I plug Spring at other places, this is the number one reason why most turn away.

I think good design would not presume an intelligence level, but rather aim to make the game fluid and easy to operate, which I must say at the moment it isn't.

Of course, I completely understand that it's an open source game, and we're completely lucky to have what we have, but I think a general intuitive approach to the design of Spring could make it a lot more accessible.