FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:29 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:50 pm 
Offline
Dyson Forest
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:21 pm
Posts: 214
Location: France
dbenage-cx wrote:
With the ability to see the pedia from the starting game menu, maybe it would be better to move the ship design categories as sub-categories to Game Data?


And Monster Types too.

Actually, Ship Design and Monster Types are "general" lists. Once a game is launched, these articles list all the ship designs and monster types (blank if accessed from the starting menu), but it doesn't mean that they are present in the current game (on the contrary of the [Game - ####] articles).

So, for a temporary fix, what about rename them in the stringtables:

Ship Design --> [Data - Ship Design]
Monster Types --> [Data - Monster Types]

Attachment:
pedia.png
pedia.png [ 16.97 KiB | Viewed 239 times ]


Quote:
I will try to see what can be done to categorize Game Data, though it may need to be hard-coded (might be a few days before I start).


That would be great, if it's possible.

# Category:

[Game Data]

## Subcategories

Monster Types
Ship Design
[Current Game - Buildings]
[Current Game - Empires]
[Current Game - Fields]
[Current Game - Fleets]
[Current Game - Galaxy]
[Current Game - Graphs]
[Current Game - Homeworlds]
[Current Game - Monster]
[Current Game - Planets]
[Current Game - Ships]
[Current Game - Systems]

_________________
I release every updated file under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:00 am 
Offline
Programmer

Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:08 am
Posts: 359
I've posted a PR to categorize these, however as noted in review:
geoffthemedia wrote:
categorizing is fine, but a lot of this stuff seems like it's useful enough to have at the top tier listing of articles... for quick access

As that seems more of a design discussion I've pulled it back to here.

I see the point in ease of access ("just one more click" starts to add up), but these surely belong separate from the normal pedia entries in some fashion?
Graphs already has a dedicated icon, possibly expand that control to a drop down with icons for each list type (probably excluding Galaxy and maybe Homeworlds).

_________________
Any content posted should be considered licensed GNU GPL 2.0 and/or CC-BY-SA 3.0 as appropriate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:58 am 
Offline
Programming, Design, Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Posts: 12045
Location: Munich
dbenage-cx wrote:
Graphs already has a dedicated icon, possibly expand that control to a drop down with icons for each list type (probably excluding Galaxy and maybe Homeworlds).
Yet another special-case UI widget seems unnecessary...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:04 pm 
Offline
Dyson Forest
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:21 pm
Posts: 214
Location: France
dbenage-cx wrote:
geoffthemedia wrote:
categorizing is fine, but a lot of this stuff seems like it's useful enough to have at the top tier listing of articles... for quick access


I see the point in ease of access ("just one more click" starts to add up), but these surely belong separate from the normal pedia entries in some fashion?
Graphs already has a dedicated icon, possibly expand that control to a drop down with icons for each list type (probably excluding Galaxy and maybe Homeworlds).


As all of these articles are relevant only in-game, my proposal:

- Keep dbenage-cx PR as it is now.
- Use the Graphs dedicated UI icon as Game Data instead (rename the tooltip), i.e. when the icon is clicked, it opens directly the ENC_EMPIRE_UNIVERSE_DATA pedia page.
- Remove the brackets for the categories considered the most useful, so they are in top of the list.
- Add "Show Game Data list" in the Keyboard shortcuts options and assign a default keyboard shortcut to it (currently none by default for "Show graphs list")

Example:

(in brackets, article content is directly related to the player's game progression, i.e. they are filled as the game advances):

Game - Graphs
Game - Empires
Game - Homeworlds
Game - Monster Types
Game - Ship Designs
[Game - Buildings]
[Game - Fields]
[Game - Fleets]
[Game - Galaxy]
[Game - Monsters]
[Game - Planets]
[Game - Ships]
[Game - Systems]

_________________
I release every updated file under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:03 pm 
Offline
Pupating Mass
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:32 pm
Posts: 99
(Edit 7 Dec 2017: Modified format to be more conistent with dbenage-cx's suggestions, added Defense categorization)
(Edit 8 Dec 2017: Added blurb at the top about my general thinking when categorizing. Added concerns about current subcategorization. Continued subcategorization suggestions.)
(Edit 9 Dec 2017: Finished subcategorization suggestions.)

I'm thinking about trying to further subcategorize techs.

I think that the Pedia should be aimed at players learning the game (for obvious reasons), so my categorization process is focused on that audience. My priority is to divide the techs by function, so that players have an easier time deciding which tech is useful to research in which situation. For example, i was motivated to move all theoretical techs into their own subsection in each category. Also i preferred to leave techs with multiple functions in the root directories, for example Interstellar Logistics and Interstellar Lighthouse.

I believe this makes more sense than trying to categorize by "theme" (genetics for example).

Concerns about current categorization (starting with minor issues first):
1. The tech "Bombardment". This isn't really a categorization issue, but while i was going through i noticed that it has the "Unlocks Ship Weapon" tag (
Code:
short_description = "SHIP_WEAPON_UNLOCK_SHORT_DESC"
). Unless i'm missing something, this tech doesn't actually unlock any weapons so it should probably be changed to "Theoretical Prerequisite":
Code:
short_description = "THEORY_SHORT_DESC"


2. Reinforced Hull. Currently in Ship Engineering > Damage Control. The other three techs in this subcategory are about repairing ships between combats, whereas Reinforced Hull simply increases the Structure of all your ships. I feel that this is really a different beast and should be moved either to the root directory or possibly to Ship Engineering > Armor (though that subcategory is for Armor Plating Ship Parts, so it doesn't feel like a great fit).

3. Domesticated Mega-Fauna. Currently in Ship Hulls > (root directory). This really has nothing to do with ship hulls, apart from being a prereq for Organic Hull. I'd like to see this moved to Growth and into a subcategory with Mega-Fauna Ecology.

4. Stealth Ship Parts. This applies to the 3 techs in Ship Engineering > Stealth (Electromagnetic Dampening, Radiation Absorbing, Dimensional Cloaking) and to the one tech in Ship Engineering > Detection (Distortion Modulator).

There is some inconsistency with these four techs. They are classified as Ship Engineering in the Pedia
Code:
tags = [ "PEDIA_DETECTION_PART_TECHS" ]


but are in the default/scripting/techs/spy directory (rather than the ../ship parts directory), have the SPY_ prefix in their focs name/desc, and are categorized in the Research screen filter as Intelligence techs
Code:
category = "SPY_CATEGORY"


I believe these should be made consistent either as Ship Engineering techs, or as Spy/Intelligence techs. Keeping the three stealth ship part techs in Ship Engineering, is somewhat problematic, as Planetary Phasing Cloak is the convergence of that tech line with the Planetary Stealth tech line (P.PhasingC. provides both the final planetary stealth boost and the final stealth ship part), leaving one to wonder if it belongs in Spy/Intelligence or Ship Engineering. I suggest these three techs be moved to Intelligence out of Ship Engineering.

Distortion Modulator is less entwined in the Intelligence tree and could really go either way. I have a slight preference to move this out of Ship Engineering as well, since other techs that unlock Detection ship parts like Active Scanner are in Intelligence anyhow. It's not like these are the only ship-part-unlock-techs not in Ship Engineering. For example, Lifecycle Manipulation and Nanotech Cybernetics. Also Distortion Modulator's current category is a category containing just a single item, where it could be grouped under Detection in Intelligence.

Where these end up isn't so important to me, but i do think the pedia>Technologies, directory structure in default/scripting/techs, focs name/desc prefixes, and research screen filter should all remain consistent, at least where possible.
_________________________
Other ideas for subcategories :

Construction>
(+) Improved Supply
  • Architechtural Monofilaments
  • Galactic Infrastructure
  • Gravitic Architecture
  • Orbital Construction
(+) Theoretical
  • Architectural Pyschology
  • Asymptotic Materials
(+) Galactic Landscaping
  • Artificial Heavenly Bodies
  • Artificial Planet
  • Planetary Starlane Drive
  • Stargate
(root directory)
  • Concentration Camps
  • Force Energy Structures
  • Interstellar Logistics (could go into (+)Supply, but, at least personally, i'm normally researching this more for the speed boost then the Logistics focus)
  • N-Dimensional Structures
  • Organic Structures
  • Transcendent Architecture

Defense>
(+) Planetary Armaments
  • Defense Network Regeneration 1
  • Defense Network Regeneration 2
  • Planetary Defense Network 1
  • Planetary Defense Network 2
  • Planetary Defense Network 3
(+) Planetary Garrison
  • Defensive Militia Training
  • Planetary Bunker Complex
  • Planetary Fortification Network
  • Planetary Guard Brigades
(+)Planetary Shields
  • Planetary Barrier Shield 1
  • Planetary Barrier Shield 2
  • Planetary Barrier Shield 3
  • Planetary Barrier Shield 4
  • Planetary Barrier Shield 5
(+) System Mines
  • System Defense Mines 1
  • System Defense Mines 2
  • System Defense Mines 3
(root directory)
  • Planetary Cloaking Device
  • Self Defense (applies to both garrison and planetary shields, so probably leave it in the root?)

Growth>
(+) Theoretical
  • Advanced Eco-Manipulation
  • Genetic Engineering
  • Nanotech Medicine
  • Trans-Organic Sentience
(+) Biological Warfare
  • Bioterror Facilities
  • Genetic Medicine
(+) Planetary Shaping
  • Gaia Transformation
  • Terraforming
(+) Habitability Improvement
  • Orbital Habitation
  • Planetary Ecology
  • Subterranean Habitation
  • Symbiotic Biology
  • Xenological Genetics
  • Xenological Hybridization
(root directory)
  • Cyborgs
  • Lifecycle Manipulation
  • Mega-Fauna Ecology (but see #3 in comments above)
  • Nanotech Cybernetics
  • Pure-Energy Metabolism

Intelligence>
(+) Detection
  • Active Radar
  • Neutron Scanner
  • Omni-scanner
  • Optical Scanner
  • Sensors
(+) Planetary Stealth
  • Planet Stealth Modifier
  • Planetary Ash Clouds
  • Planetary Cloud Cover
  • Planetary Dimensional Cloak
(+) Theoretical
  • Deception
  • Force-Energy Camouflage
(root directory)
  • Empire Intelligence Agency
  • Interstellar Lighthouse (could go into Detection, but the Lighthouse also provides a speed boost)
**OTHER** (see discussion above)
  • Planetary Phasing Cloak
  • Dimensional Cloaking
  • Electromagnetic Dampening
  • Radiation Absorbing
  • Distortion Modulator

Learning>
(+) Advanced Research
  • Algorithmic Elegance
  • Distributed Thought Computing
  • Enclave of the Void
  • Nascent Artificial Intelligence
  • Quantum Networking
  • Stellar Tomography
  • The Physical Brain
(+) Theoretical
  • Mind of the Void
  • N-Dimensional Subspace
  • Psionics
  • Theory of Everything
  • Translinguistics
(root directory)
  • Artificial Black Hole
  • Black Hole Collapser
  • Force-Field Harmonics
  • Gateway to the Void
  • Gravitonics
  • Psychogenic Domination
  • Singularity Of Transcendence
  • Spatial Distortion
  • Temporal Mechanics
  • Unified Consciousness
  • Xenoarchaelogy

Production>
(+) Enhanced Industry
  • Adaptive Automation
  • Fusion Generation
  • Greater Industrial Center
  • Industrial Centers
  • Microgravity Industry
  • N-Dimensional Assembly
  • Orbital Generation
  • Robotic Production
  • Singularity Generation
  • Solar Orbital Generation
  • Supreme Industrial Center
(+) Imperial Stockpile Innovations
  • Generic Supplies
  • Interstellar Entanglement Factory
  • Predictive Stockpiling
  • Transcendent Design
(+) Theoretical
  • Nanotech Production
  • Zero-Point Generation
(root directory)
  • Exobots
  • Neutronium Extraction

Remaining categories (Ship Engineering, Ship Hulls, Ship Weapons): Just add (+) signs where appropriate.
New categories: Add short descriptions e.g. "Technologies related to enhancing research output".


Last edited by alleryn on Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:56 am, edited 7 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:16 am 
Offline
Programmer

Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:08 am
Posts: 359
@alleryn Realize the list is still being edited:
I think having mixed levels for the articles is preferred (leaving at least "Uncategorized Construction" articles within the construction article/category.).
If they are fixed to one level it imposes extra clicks with little content when browsing.
If not such nesting is not generated, it also requires quite a few filler articles be written.

Might be helpful to at least denote articles used as categories with a "+" in the pedia, at least until the pedia UI is later improved.
That is, provided it can be done without much additional overhead, iirc each listed article would require an additional search.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:03 pm 
Offline
Pupating Mass
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:32 pm
Posts: 99
dbenage-cx wrote:
@alleryn Realize the list is still being edited:
I think having mixed levels for the articles is preferred (leaving at least "Uncategorized Construction" articles within the construction article/category.).
If they are fixed to one level it imposes extra clicks with little content when browsing.
If not such nesting is not generated, it also requires quite a few filler articles be written.

Might be helpful to at least denote articles used as categories with a "+" in the pedia, at least until the pedia UI is later improved.
That is, provided it can be done without much additional overhead, iirc each listed article would require an additional search.

Sounds good. I have been busy this last week, but hope to get back to this on Thursday, or next week at the latest.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:59 pm 
Offline
Pupating Mass
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:32 pm
Posts: 99
Updated my post above. Please take a look and offer your opinions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:36 pm 
Offline
Dyson Forest
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2014 7:21 pm
Posts: 214
Location: France
Pedia needs definitely more subcategories and I like your sorting improvement.

But as said earlier in this topic, I think 3 levels of navigation is already the max we can afford, simply because there is no navigation panel/path implemented in the Pedia.

The main goal of categorizing the pedia was to avoid huge lists of +50 items (and add some sorting, of course), when a new player browses randomly the pedia.

The search box implemented a few months ago by Geoff also minimized greatly the cumbersome pedia navigation.

Back in 2012, some people have already the same concern about pedia navigation:

eleazar wrote:
Navigating the 'Pedia is pretty important to the game, unless you have a photographic memory. Unfortunately, in it's one-window incarnation, it's not very easy to get around.


viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6597&p=52209&hilit=+pedia+navigation#p52209

This old topic is quite interesting, they thought to implement accordion or tree navigation, Geoff wasn't convinced by the idea of subcategorize the Pedia (!), a search box was mentionned... ^^

eleazar wrote:
I'd rather see another step in the hierarchy of the 'Pedia, though possibly not until the navigation is improved.


viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6726&p=55534&hilit=+pedia+navigation#p55534

We're currently at 3 (without counting the Pedia Index), and there's lot more content than in 2012!


Denote a category with a "+" sign sounds good at first, but it prevents to use the corresponding key in the stringtables if necessary (unless the display of a "+" sign - or a bullet "•" - can be hard-coded) . For example:

"Supply range can be increased by researching [[encyclopedia SUPPLY_CATEGORY]] techs"
""Supply range can be increased by researching (+) Supply techs"

It's just an example to give an idea (and moreover, "Supply" is already used as [[metertype METER_SUPPLY]]).

_________________
I release every updated file under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:54 am 
Offline
Pupating Mass
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:32 pm
Posts: 99
Thank you for the feedback.
Ouaz wrote:
But as said earlier in this topic, I think 3 levels of navigation is already the max we can afford, simply because there is no navigation panel/path implemented in the Pedia.

I guess i missed this part of the discussion; I can't seem to find it now. Fortunately, I think 3 levels is still sufficient for our needs (at least for the time being). What i've suggested above only moves onto that third level. (Currently all the tech categories other than Ship Engineering, Ship Hulls, and Ship Weapons are only to the second level).
Quote:
eleazar wrote:
Navigating the 'Pedia is pretty important to the game, unless you have a photographic memory. Unfortunately, in it's one-window incarnation, it's not very easy to get around.

http://freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... ion#p52209
This old topic is quite interesting, they thought to implement accordion or tree navigation, Geoff wasn't convinced by the idea of subcategorize the Pedia (!), a search box was mentionned... ^^
eleazar wrote:
I'd rather see another step in the hierarchy of the 'Pedia, though possibly not until the navigation is improved.

http://freeorion.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... ion#p55534
We're currently at 3 (without counting the Pedia Index), and there's lot more content than in 2012!

That's a lot of historical context to digest. Right now, i think the techs area of the pedia specifically can benefit from (additional) subcategories. After not playing FO for 18 months or so, i found it pretty difficult to remember which techs did what. I think being able to browse through categories would aid in the learning/re-learning process.
Quote:
Denote a category with a "+" sign sounds good at first, but it prevents to use the corresponding key in the stringtables if necessary (unless the display of a "+" sign - or a bullet "•" - can be hard-coded) . For example:

"Supply range can be increased by researching [[encyclopedia SUPPLY_CATEGORY]] techs"
""Supply range can be increased by researching (+) Supply techs"

It's just an example to give an idea (and moreover, "Supply" is already used as [[metertype METER_SUPPLY]]).

Here are a few different methods we could use:

1. No differences between subcategories and articles (current system). Upside: seamless integration when using stringtable keys in-line. Downside: Poor readability when browsing the pedia category.

2. (+) sign denotation. Upside: improved readability. Downside: Poor integration of stringtables. [However currently there would be no downside, as these categories aren't linked in the pedia. In what context would it be useful to reference a techs subcategory?]

3. Put all the 'root directory' techs into their own subcategory (this would put everything at the same depth). Call it "Miscellaneous" or "Other <Tech Category> Techs". Upside: Good readability and integration. Downside: A bit cumbersome and forced.
__________
Also, i edited my post above to change "Supply" to "Improved Supply", as well as renaming a few other categories with similar ambiguities.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:21 am 
Offline
Programmer

Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 12:08 am
Posts: 359
For "category" denotation, I did not mean to suggest any alteration to stringtable(s), only a hard-coded check.
Conceptually, these category articles would only be denoted when listed within an article.
It could be some text symbol other than + or even a graphic, in either case would not be part of the link itself.
e.g. (links are only for display)

-----
Ship Hull

Some descriptive text describing a ship hull.

Hull Line: Asteroids
Hull Line: Energy
Monster Bodies
Xentronium Hull
-----

Would want to see some demand for such a feature though, as it is likely to have a performance impact.


With it being in Damage Control, I imagined the flavor text of Reinforced Hull to be along the lines of reducing structural decay, with the actual mechanic being a short-hand way of expressing the outcome. Damage Control appears more relevant than other options if that was the intent, though moving it up a level seems reasonable too.

Agree with the other points, especially intelligence techs falling under different categories (should fall under their listed tech category).

Do we need some separation for Theoretical techs? As you need to view the tech in some manner to know if it is classified as theoretical, would opt to leave in root directory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:17 am 
Offline
Programming, Design, Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Posts: 12045
Location: Munich
dbenage-cx wrote:
Conceptually, these category articles would only be denoted when listed within an article.
Hull Line: Asteroids
If the category name is every linked in the middle of a sentence, that will look odd. Adding a symbol like that only works when generating a list of articles / categories that doesn't have any surrounding sentence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:15 pm 
Offline
Pupating Mass
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:32 pm
Posts: 99
dbenage-cx wrote:
Do we need some separation for Theoretical techs? As you need to view the tech in some manner to know if it is classified as theoretical, would opt to leave in root directory.

My thought here is/was to separate out techs that have no immediate impact, but are simply prerequisite techs (the techs labeled "Theoretical") from those which have a direct impact but have no category ("Miscellaneous" techs, currently in the root directory).

I think it's useful if at least one of these is isolated into a (sub)category.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group