Spring RTS Engine

just discovered that changing icondistance to 1 (from 2) makes the icons display properly at last at icon distance 100.. if 300 is the standard playing distance for other mods changing it to 0.34 should make it display properly at 300.

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:Attatched is my icon scheme so far
shown here are (clockwise) Some AA units, some cannon units and a number of unknown radar contacts (the '!' icon needs a darker outline, I know)

megalulz.jpg

Just look at that impressive panzer battalion!
It will crush the enemy with superior firepower!

uhm actually it shows that spring games should not be played as icon-wars, you should only have to see icons if you zoomed out for a quick overview. not for playing.

p.u.r.e. has symbols under the models, some glowing circle with an arrow i think. maybe try something like this?

1v0ry_k1ng wrote: as to letters on AA icons, yo dawg I heard you like s44, the mod where the AA guns have "AA" written on the icon

I made those icons, and I did so because there was no better way to indicate the information given the current use of "AT", but you've added a redundant symbol in addition to it.

neddiedrow wrote:

1v0ry_k1ng wrote: as to letters on AA icons, yo dawg I heard you like s44, the mod where the AA guns have "AA" written on the icon

I made those icons, and I did so because there was no better way to indicate the information given the current use of "AT", but you've added a redundant symbol in addition to it.

it shows an AA gun, and the letters AA
your icon shows an AA gun, and the letters AA

if you cant be supportive at least be constructive yo

knorke wrote: uhm actually it shows that spring games should not be played as icon-wars, you should only have to see icons if you zoomed out for a quick overview. not for playing.

with icon distance set correctly, icons should render only as the unit gets too small to be legible. I dont know if youve played EE recently but that happens at a much lesser distance than, for example, BA.

Whereas I say that a simple coloured line around the edge is far mor complicated than an icon that's so detailed it even has text in it.

Insufficient contrast and variation is insufficient.

Right now there is no shape differentiation, no colour differentiation, no size differentiation.

You are relying on the concious mind to pick out the icons, this is very bad, rely on the unconcious mind to do it so it takes less mental energy ( it currently takes a lot of concious organisation, your icon scheme does little to fix this. ).

These icons essentially take the existing icons further down an already flawed route. Yes they're better at what they do, but my point is that what they do is the thign at fault, not how well you did them.

It doesn't matter how hard you improve and refine, a rectangular wheel will never be as good as a circular one.

shape differentiation will be between units, buildings air and sea (diamond, square, triangle and semi-circle) with size showing tech level.

here are some mods that follow the same approach towards icon design:

BA
CA
XTA
NOTA
SWIW

the only popular and frequently played mod with silhouettes instead of simple shapes is s44.

bearing in mind these icons are a *huge* improvement on the current ones (which is simply a single silhouette shared between all unit subtypes) which was my original aim, unless you are posting an alternative scheme id prefer specific suggestions on what to change rather than lofty condemnation

neddiedrow wrote:It IS normally scaled. What do you want us to do, cut the number of units on a map by a factor of five and increase the size of every unit by the same factor?

I want to see units.
ATM differentiating units is impossible unless you zoom out to icon view.
You can:
1)lower unit numbers at every given time so that a player would have more time to handle small groups without having to worry about anything else since it takes a lot of time to build buildings and capture spots.
This would mean youd have to zoom in and out less since you could fight a battle with your group of troops without having to zoom out and give all sorts of other commands all over the place.
Personally id do this by lowering resource amounts or raising prices and making all processes except unit movement much slower and adding a another stat to units,stamina.
This will force the game to slow down as troops get tired and start moving,shooting,reloading slower and be forced to rest or regroup and not always fight fight fight like they were peewees.

Im talking about making less troops and focusing on the amount of them that you do have.
How to move them properly from place to place how to keep em safe etc etc...
Slowly the battle will get more busy as old troops need to rest and new troops coming along.
ATM its just rush rush rush,select horde send forward even with arty and suppression.
There isnt a strong feeling of you microing ur group of units and overcoming larger numbers...
There is just hording and sending them in..
These larger numbers of troops and having to constantly give commands across the entire map means you have to be zoomed out all the time.

take examples of other games like COH.
They focused on getting just a few points across the map with just a few groups of units.
You overcome your opponent by taking cover correctly behind obstacles and using group abilities like throwing grenades etc...
s44 atm is completely built around controlling masses of units.
Your zoomed out and it just feels like moving blobs around.
You guess what forces to send forward and if your lucky your mixed horde overcomes.
units function 100% efficiently without your interference like in TA but there is no movement microing like in ta..
It gets reduced to a random mixed blob fight of icons spiced with the occasional(quite rare) Intentional machine gun suppression of your enemy.


2)you can also make the game about groups of units that stick to each other and can be selected as a single unit.
This would mean having a group of units that has a single icon and not 1 icon per troop.

3)if you wanna stay at this sort of "blobish" cloudy control of units(which is fine) than go through with it and make unit control semi indirect.
you can have several types of behavior per group that you can change on the fly and you can have several different hot markers that mark different hot zones roughly to where you need your troops to strive to get.
This would mean that there wont be this feeling of semi zoomed in semi zoomed out thing since u wont have to and wont be able to control each unit individually.
Each group could have a commander that rises with ranks and open up more control schemes for that groups with the possibility of regrouping...

4)you can increase unit sizes by a good amount and leave gameplay as it is(with minor changes i guess).

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:shape differentiation will be between units, buildings air and sea (diamond, square, triangle and semi-circle) with size showing tech level.

here are some mods that follow the same approach towards icon design:

BA
CA
XTA
NOTA
SWIW

the only popular and frequently played mod with silhouettes instead of simple shapes is s44.

bearing in mind these icons are a *huge* improvement on the current ones (which is simply a single silhouette shared between all unit subtypes) which was my original aim, unless you are posting an alternative scheme id prefer specific suggestions on what to change rather than lofty condemnation

Actually, the current scheme is specific icon silhouettes for specific units, no two are the same, but they are not distinct enough for the purposes of differentiation, hence my proposal for simplified silhouettes with intelligible role symbols. Open up E&E 0.46!

Just because silhouettes aren't used as much doesn't make them worse. They require a lot more work and attention to do correctly, but because they're actually representative they're much easier to associate psychologically. Circles, squares and semicircles are just arbitrary, adding symbols to something arbitrary increases the complexity of recognition, rather than reduces it.

TL;DR: Simple shapes are simple to make and simple to process providing they represent simple data. With a unit set of limited unit use (BA) or limited unit selection (KP) they work well enough, though I contend that with somebody willing to map out the style silhouettes or representative symbols alone would be better. Here they don't represent that simple data, thus they are not optimal.

silhouettes tend look crappy in game though

Those icons look good 1v0ry, could you post a screenshot of them at playable zoom? You might want to make the weapontype icon a bit bigger too, look at CA's icons, a lot of them have the weapontype poking outside the background to break up the monotonous outline. Also you should have 1 symbol for the AA icon, maybe just a big AA.

1v0ry_k1ng wrote:silhouettes tend look crappy in game though

Only because they're done wrong. Only because no single artist with a plan has created a full set. Circles with bloody symbols on them look crappy. Supreme Commander shapes with role symbols and tier tags look crappy. What you're making will look bad and won't add to playability for many people.

Instead of putting icons in the diamonds etc, put a coloured border round representing the weapon type. Infact you could do both, but the unconscious mind will work off of the colours not the little icons inside.

neddiedrow wrote:Only because they're done wrong. Only because no single artist with a plan has created a full set. Circles with bloody symbols on them look crappy. Supreme Commander shapes with role symbols and tier tags look crappy. What you're making will look bad and won't add to playability for many people.

your going to have to excuse me if I cease to value your oppinion on this.

@AF:
when I get home, I will mock up what you describe.. but I dont think it'll work well. I think it'll look odd having lots of diffrent colours on the screen and there is no instant link between say, rockets and the colour blue. the shape of a rocket is alot easier to relate to a rocket unit. because the diamond has to be that size to cover the unit and be selectable anyway, it just makes sense to make use of the space to include an icon rather than leave it blank.

The beauty of it is, you can do both. Your icon would serve as an indicator to learn what the color is, and then you would consciously use the icons, and unconciously refer to the colours.

It doesn't make too much sense from a concious point of view, but thats because its not aimed at a concious step by step mind, its intended to take advantage of the stuff running underneath, the subconcious automatic reflex stuff.

Google_Frog wrote:Those icons look good 1v0ry, could you post a screenshot of them at playable zoom? You might want to make the weapontype icon a bit bigger too, look at CA's icons, a lot of them have the weapontype poking outside the background to break up the monotonous outline. Also you should have 1 symbol for the AA icon, maybe just a big AA.

playable zoom screenshot attatched note that all other icons are half-size (they were crazy big before)

Not sure if I like those. They're trying too hard to be literal silhouettes - the URCbot silhouettes look like a skull and crossbones. I'd just use a simple bowling-pin shape for the turrets and an X overlaying a circle for the URCbots.

A good start, though.

I have only changed the GD icons so far. those URC icons you be hatin' are my motivation for making new ones

Im not sure what the Laser weapon icon should be.. any ideas? best I came up with was a torch with beam coming out of it lolz

You never did value my opinion, and most people on the lobby think you're just doing this to bait me, since doing it the way I advocate will take too much time and thus in a comparison, I won't be able to stand up.

guys, there is no need to fight over an icon set, I consider everyone's learning methods quite different, so what may work for someone may not be as intuitive for someone else.

assumed that, EE could simply ship multiple icon sets, this example widget is based off an old trepan widget, using this multiple sets could be switched by the user on the fly according to his preferences