Any additions to the "Battleroom" dialog...

Ace07 · Post by **Ace07** » 02 Jun 2005, 03:11

I will change it to something. I have to think hard on a good name though.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 02 Jun 2005, 03:22

Brain dump of ideas:

Shared Army and Allied Commanders
Single control and Alliance
United Front and Independent Allies
Union and Federation <--!
Union and Confederation
Republic and Confederation
Republic and Vassal

I like the !'ed one the best.

Ace07 · Post by **Ace07** » 02 Jun 2005, 04:14

In my opinion, the least confusing would be a mix of several.

Shared Army (#1,2,3,4,5,6) and Team (#1,2,3,4,5,6)

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 03 Jun 2005, 21:21

The problem still lies there if the option is named "Team". It could easily mean the same thing as having a shared army, which would only contribute to confusion.

Why not use Allied Commanders instead?

Ace07 · Post by **Ace07** » 04 Jun 2005, 00:33

I will change it to "Alliance." Allied Commanders is too long.

Dragon45 · Post by **Dragon45** » 04 Jun 2005, 22:03

Right, but again with Alliance the ambiguity still remains.

How about at the top of the dual-columns, it said "Command", and then in the indivudal players' buttons the options were "Shared" or "Seperate"

Ace07 · Post by **Ace07** » 05 Jun 2005, 03:59

If you both share the same army you can't be Allied....its quite simple. To be allied, you actually have to have armies to fight the enemy with.

The only confusing part was "Allied Team" + "Team" originally. They both had the word "Team" in them, and as such it caused confusion. "Team" or "Alliance" should not be confusing if you have played RTS's before. Throwing another type of Alliance in that questions this normal line of logic is what got us into trouble.

But "Alliance" and "Shared Army" are not similar at all. Its hard to get them confused in my opinion (none of the words are the same). Plus, if someone ever gets confused, they can always move the mouse over it to find out what it is. The tip system is quite extensive at this point.

EDIT: Sorry for seeming firm...either way, I am going to leave it like this for now. I do like your idea...but lets wait until we see some actual releases. I doubt it will be as confusing as it is now, so that is certainly an improvement.

Min3mat · Post by **Min3mat** » 05 Jun 2005, 15:08

um now that everyone (or 95%+) of ppl know bout team + allyteam couldn't you leave it as it is? it DOES make sense.

please? i don't want to spend time relearning!

Ace07 · Post by **Ace07** » 05 Jun 2005, 17:03

I already explained why Team and Ally Team are confusing. In fact, Ally Team barely makes sense in the context it is used. The only one that makes sense in the current system is "Team."

Spring RTS Engine

Any additions to the "Battleroom" dialog...