galaxy map information modes/overlays

[pd]

Is there a special reason why the supply dots are moving at all? There is "overlap" occurring when supply comes from two sides:



Is it important to indicate from what direction supply comes?
How about using static indicators for supply instead?

[eleazar]

Having dashes so similar to the fleet lines, might get confusing, even if they are colored. I like how the dots are quite different from the dashes. That said we could perhaps use something else that's not as hard to see and still different from the dashes.

I though we had pretty much decided to use something other than dashes for the fleet line. Certainly the two need to be distinct, but since supply range is conceptually similar to whatever is indicated by our solid lines, it seems good to me to use more visually similar indicators for them.

Also if the fleet uses the dashes, that pretty much covers up the little dots, but if we switched things around and used dots (or triangles or whatever) for the fleet lines both would be visible.


I must qualify my answer with the admission that i've not seen this version running.

Is there a special reason why the supply dots are moving at all? There is "overlap" occurring when supply comes from two sides:

Is it important to indicate from what direction supply comes?
How about using static indicators for supply instead?

I don't think overlap is a good thing. In late game long multiple-overlapping lanes would tend to create a blinking mess. Of course i might be wrong since i can't see it. I tend to think the supply lines shouldn't overlap, and that moving is sorta nice, but something we can live without if it interferes with things like fleet movement lines.

[Geoff the Medio]

Is there a special reason why the supply dots are moving at all? There is "overlap" occurring when supply comes from two sides:

Is it important to indicate from what direction supply comes?
How about using static indicators for supply instead?

I don't think overlap is a good thing. In late game long multiple-overlapping lanes would tend to create a blinking mess. Of course i might be wrong since i can't see it. I tend to think the supply lines shouldn't overlap, and that moving is sorta nice, but something we can live without if it interferes with things like fleet movement lines.

Showing the direction supply flows is useful because it shows which systems are the biggest sources of supply, and somewhat where blockades might be effective. In the case of a blockade or other obstruction to supply, the direction makes it easier to see how supply is being routed around the obstruction.

The overlap only occurs in certain situations when there's no obvious way to decide which direction supply should flow. The exact details of when this is is complicated, but the idea is that if two systems have supply they can propegate an equal distance away from eachother, they are basically equal in terms of supply, and in this case, supply could and/or does flow in either direction between them, so the lines are drawn in both directions. In most cases a long-range source of supply will propegate outward only, and you won't see supply flowing inward towards the long-range source. It should be only when two long-range sources supply propegate meet or a single source's propegation meets itself that the multidirectional propegation should appear. There may be some tweaking needed for this though, in the case where two short range sorces exchange supply in both directions, and then a longer-range source propegates over top of this; the longer-range propegation should overwrite the shorter-range propegation in both directions with a single-direction of propegation, but right now it probably doesn't remove the the counter-flow. (I said it was complicated)

[eleazar]

The overlap only occurs in certain situations when there's no obvious way to decide which direction supply should flow.

In those cases the computer should "flip a coin" to decide which direction to use.
Or if you want to get fancy, you could make it go from both ends and meet in the middle.

There's no value to the player in effectively highlighting lanes that are equally supplied from multiple sources, so either all supply lines should overlap, or none of them should.

I understand how this is easier to state than to implement.

[pd]

I've been "playing" a bit and thought that those things could be helpful. They are merely notes and I'll try to provide pictures later.

habitability overlay
It shows on a galaxy level what kind of planets are in system and therefore how habitable it is. A color range(from green to red) could be used to describe what is habitable and what is not.
This might or might not be connected with a potential population overlay.

focus selection overlay
It shows on a galaxy level what kind of focuses are selected. This way you'll be easily able to spot your farming or mining worlds. This might or might not be connected with an output overlay.

resource/output development prediction
I'm not sure, if this can be displayed like the other things in this thread or if a separate screen will be needed. To counter a certain decrease in farming or mining for example one will go around, search for a proper planet and set it's meters accordingly. Meter development takes some time and that's why it might be useful to be able to see how a certain resource develops in X turns. This way it's possible to see if the changes made are sufficient or if more planets have to be changed. I have no idea how to display this yet, there might be graphs involved.

range overlay
Certain building will have effects, that have a range(measured in starlane jumps).

[Robbie.Price]

Goodmorning all

I would like to re-suggest some form of overlay which indicates infrastructure vulnerabilities to being indirectly blockaded, which would probably be displayed in regions, or somehow about/around starlanes.

best wishes

[Redcap]

My bro plays Metriod Prime and in the game their is a visor selction option. So if you want to see the terrain in a different way you click the visor and there you go. Wouldn't it be realitively simple to do different views.

Standard: Stars names are colored according to who owns the most of it.
Empire: Rings de-noting ownership
Economical/Industrial Planets:
Weakness/Strengths:
Etc.

I am not demanding this in anyway, just kicking the soccer ball of ideas around.

[pd]

Wouldn't it be realitively simple to do different views.

Yes, this is what this thread is all about. Your suggestions are quite loose though and need to be specified. What exactly should be shown? How do we get most out of it? How is it shown exactly? You'll quickly notice it's not that simple.

Robbie.Price: Could you perhaps be more specific as well? Or is this maybe post 0.4 stuff? Are blockades currently possible? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. What are indirect blockades?

[Redcap]

Your suggestions are quite loose though and need to be specified. .

We could set up the system like layers in ps. Off to the side of the screen may be a few check boxes. As you click the check boxes it starts to show different aspects of the map by simply layering one view ontop of another. So basic view is just the stars' name. You then click the "fleet" check box and you can see your ships. You then click "enemy fleet" check box and you can now see all the visible enemy ships. You can then click "empire" and see the rings around the stars denoting who owns them. You could then select ... ect.

What exactly should be shown?

Off in the lower righthand corner could be a white, semi-transulent eye. You click it and a small pop up window would appear. In the pop up window would be the name of the different layers with a check box next to them. As the player checks what they want to see it automatically adds that layer to their view of the map.

So what may the player check? Don't quite know, but at least nothing; leaving a starmap with only star names. Fleet, showing fleets (maybe divided into individual players fleets). Empire, showing the rings around the planets of ownership. As we develop more I am sure more windows would be helpful. Such as planets not currently producing anything, economical indicators, etc.

How do we get most out of it?

Make it start off with the fleet button selected and the empire button selected so it looks just like the game does now. Since it is small and off to the side it doesn't really get in the way and if a player doesn't know how to use it they play just as if they would without this feature. However, players who like to toggle between views to see possible patterns or weaknesses may find it quite useful and would use it however they find it useful. For example, I am bad at multitasking so a view letting me see idle planets may be useful to me, but others may find this useless. Hence the player gets out of it what they need out of it. Don't need it, don't use it. Need it, use it.

How is it shown exactly?

Talked abou this already, but to add to it; after you open up the view check list you might seperate it like folders. Fleet and then listed below it every player with a check box. That way if you only want to see player 2's fleet you could check player 2 under fleet instead of fleet which would check them all.

You'll quickly notice it's not that simple.

Yeah, but it may be neat and let us not worry about cluttering the board but rather let the player worry about that. Just a thought, nothing more really.

[pd]

Making all those different modes work well together and be easily accessible at the same time will be the hardest part. I'd like like to avoid any kind of popups or extra windows. Ideally everything is easily accessible from the galaxymap.

It goes without saying, but mockups are very welcome.

[eleazar]

Making all those different modes work well together and be easily accessible at the same time will be the hardest part. I'd like like to avoid any kind of popups or extra windows. Ideally everything is easily accessible from the galaxymap.

I Agree.

I don't see the point in giving the player a million options to turn on and off all parts of the display, that just makes it harder for him to switch between different kinds of views.

[Robbie.Price]

Robbie.Price: Could you perhaps be more specific as well? Or is this maybe post 0.4 stuff? Are blockades currently possible? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. What are indirect blockades?

ya, this was Post 0.4. There is talk <<viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1901&hilit=&start=75>> re the possibility of blockading a system(or systems) and preventing the two sides from sharing the same stockpiles (or preventing the other side from having a stockpile at all, depending on the model)

Having an overhead which colour coded the 'generally conductivity' of a region would be nice. Something along the lines of changing the background colour of the map to represent how hard it would be to divide a region in two, locally.

If a region was dark green for example, that region would be very hard to divide into two bits, but two green patches seperated by a yellow or a red patch would indicate that by running a blockade in the yellow/red region you could cut the empire into two, (the two Green regions).

to determine colour information such as 'distance to an opposing fleets supply lines' number of 'parallel' star lanes -> alternative routes. . . and the like would be taken into account. Ship positions would not be, or two differnt overheads one with and one without ships.

Best wishes
Robbie price

[Robbie.Price]

Goodmorning all again

Trying to keep my posts short;


Re multi screens, and switching between them.

If i were making the system my goal would be to have all the information you use 90% of the time be the default. You can then go to the side bar, (or buttons circling the mini-map is a popular option) and switch modes for an differnt view, This differnt view would not have to be very interactive, since it's only there to display information... you would have only one of the alternate view open, and then you would close it when your finished learning what you wanted.

The goal is not to provide an alternative layout (for me) but a temporary information layout, for information you use rarely but which isn't 'easy' to see on the standard layout.

Best wishes.

Price

[eleazar]

Looks like Will has some of the same ideas about how to display ownership of star systems in Spore.

16_538.jpg (82.15 KiB) Viewed 2897 times

16_461.jpg (75.09 KiB) Viewed 2896 times

[eleazar]

OK, here's what i've come up with for the first 4 levels of zoom. (Fleets will appear in that range somewhere, but i'm ignoring them for now.)

Zoom1-4.png (210.49 KiB) Viewed 2801 times

What:

* Tiny-stars are used for 1 through 4 (not 1 through 3 as currently)

* Occupied stars get a colored ring. By default, the color indicates the empire. The thickness of the ring indicates the magnitude of whatever the player has the galaxy map set to display: population, total production, whatever. Multi-owner systems are indicated by the white ring. Ring graphics have been uploaded into trunk. There's no special significance to using 5 ring sizes. It's just a reasonable it-works-for-now, thing. If possible please implement the tiny-rings so that it will use however many of the numbers files as are included.

* The ring (if present) would make a good mouse-target for the system. The graphic is solid black in the middle to help keep the colors pure and identifiable, but that also makes it a good click target.

* Empty-looking rings are black holes.

* Layers:
Top

Ships
Starnames
Stars
Rings
Lanes
Gaseous, etc

Bottom



Reasoning:

* There have been various interesting ideas about more complicated graphs, but at these levels of zoom we need to stick with something simple to stay legible. Trying to color one of these rings multiple colors (especially a thin ring in multiple colors) would usually produce pixel-mush.
Even coloring a ring with only two colors (like green and cyan) can be virtually undetectable, and multi-owner systems should be noticeable, thus the white.

* I'm slightly concerned with the overlap at zoom-1, maybe we'll have to do something different for this level, that can be addressed after seeing it for real.