Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.
Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2

#46 Post by eleazar » Wed Aug 01, 2012 4:05 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote:...but I think "Aggressive" describes the first option better than the (meaningless) "Standard". Also, there's no reason to assume or imply that "Aggressive" would be the normal / most commonly used setting.

I don't really care what a player might do more often -- depends on play style, but attacking and blockading your enemy is very easily understood as the default or normal interaction. I thought about "open" as the opposite to "secret", but that word has too many meanings to clarify anything.

"Aggressive" makes no sense for any empires you are not at war with.

Also, the same icons are used for both settings for empires and fleets. "combat.png" is unused.
Can you link one of them to different icons so i can help visually distinguish diplomatic status from fleet settings.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2

#47 Post by Geoff the Medio » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:03 pm

eleazar wrote:...attacking and blockading your enemy is very easily understood as the default or normal interaction.
I disagree, but I don't think it matters, as IMO the state / setting should give some direct indication of what it means, rather than assuming the player knows what "standard" means.
"Aggressive" makes no sense for any empires you are not at war with.
And "Hidden" doesn't apply if you have a vision sharing agreement with an empire... There are going to be causes where the orders don't have any relevance, but I think we should focus their names to apply to situations when they are relevant.
Also, the same icons are used for both settings for empires and fleets. "combat.png" is unused. Can you link one of them to different icons so i can help visually distinguish diplomatic status from fleet settings.
I've added fleet_aggressive.png, fleet_aggressive_mouseover.png, fleet_passive.png, and fleet_passive_mouseover.png.

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2

#48 Post by eleazar » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:06 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote:And "Hidden" doesn't apply if you have a vision sharing agreement with an empire...

Vision sharing currently doesn't exist, and, while i like the idea, may not ever. I'm worried about explaining current behavior.

I've added fleet_aggressive.png, fleet_aggressive_mouseover.png, fleet_passive.png, and fleet_passive_mouseover.png.

Thanks.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12243
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2

#49 Post by Geoff the Medio » Wed Aug 01, 2012 8:59 pm

How about "Control System" and "Hide"? This way they're both verbs, both sort of indicate the benefit or purpose of the settings (vaguely covering both attacking enemies and blocking supply propagation), and perhaps it makes more sense to not object to empires you're at peace with being present if you're controlling rather than aggressive?

User avatar
eleazar
Design & Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:09 pm
Location: USA — midwest

Re: Issues in 0.4.1 RC 2

#50 Post by eleazar » Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:29 pm

Geoff the Medio wrote:How about "Control System" and "Hide"?

Sounds good.

revision 5089
"clarified-- if quick-- icons and lables for fleet stances."

Post Reply