Icons

[kbluck]

Another pollable topic!

If you're not entire sure what the poll choices mean, please read the "Raging Tiger graphics" thread here (http://www.warfarehq.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7999) before voting.

Presumably the arrow direction and turret indicators would remain for all options, suitably adapted for the chosen style.

[John Osborne]

Hi Kevin,

As you allready know I'm a diehard TacOps player :nuts: I use the TacOps side-view "silhouette" icons more then the operational graphic "NATO" icons. I read your post and agree with what you mention. I never did like side views or top down views anyway. If RT changes to the type of icons that TacOps use I think it would be a very good game. I have a hard time seeing the units in both ATF and RT.

John

[CPangracs]

Hi Kevin,

As you allready know I'm a diehard TacOps player :nuts: I use the TacOps side-view "silhouette" icons more then the operational graphic "NATO" icons. I read your post and agree with what you mention. I never did like side views or top down views anyway. If RT changes to the type of icons that TacOps use I think it would be a very good game. I have a hard time seeing the units in both ATF and RT.

John
You seem to be insinuating in your post that neither ATF nor Raging Tiger are "...very good games". I hope there is something in your syntax making it sound so negative.;)

[John Osborne]

You seem to be insinuating in your post that neither ATF nor Raging Tiger are "...very good games". I hope there is something in your syntax making it sound so negative.;)

I'm going to let it rest Curt.

[CPangracs]

I'm going to let it rest Curt.
Dude, I was kidding! Ease-up, birthday boy!:p :cheeky:

[John Osborne]

Dude, I was kidding! Ease-up, birthday boy!:p :cheeky:

This was before we made up with hugs :p Need to get more beer :devil: Wifes at work and I'm home free (until she gets back :D )

John

[Leo]

At the moment i prefer the nato-style-symbols. They make the software rather looking like an military simulation than a game. It 's more professional. And it's easier to get an overview of the whole situation.

IMO the picture-icons of RT look very nice. But kbluck explained it with great detail - there are a few problems while using them.

Leo

[Pat Proctor]

Far be it from to alienate the game buying public, but... ;)

I have now made a game with just about every look there is for a tactical wargame.

BCT and BCT Commander had the abstracted red and blue side views. They were easy to see but derided as "cartoonish"
ATF had top down vehicle views with movable turrets. They have, in the previous thread, been derided as indistinguishable and pixelated.
RT had ultra-realistic side views. It is being "poo-pooed" as difficult to see on realistic map backgrounds.


About the only thing that seems agreeable to the majority of players are the operational symbols, that are available in all three games. (I have heard complaints that the counter backgrounds-which KBluck seems to think are a good thing in TacOps-cover up too much of the map.)

Please forgive my exasperation. I NEVER want to stifle conversation or suggestion. And I never want to harrass anyone for expressing their opinion.

I just ask that, as you read and post, you remember that we all want the same thing, great wargames that we all enjoy playing.

[XRAY]

The word Grognards springs instantly to mind!

I don’t think there is one contributor on this forum that does not appreciate the amount of effort put in by Captain P ,Curt et al. In the past bending over backwards to try and accommodate the wishes of players. I for one feel a bit like a chastened spoilt child.

Who’d be a war games developer?

[Don Maddox]

Granted, developers often get mixed signals from wargamers because wargamers want different things from a game. It can be a challenge for developers to know exactly what they are doing right and what needs improvement. The grognards will grumble . . .

Having said that, I'm sure most developers do need the feedback, even if it isn't always what they want to hear. Yes, there some mixed signals, but's it's still honest user feedback. Warfare HQ gets mixed signals from the gaming public all the time. All the staff can do is attempt to sort through it and try to look at it from others' points of view. That's not always easy, espicially if it's something that we have put a fair amount of time and effort into. Nevertheless, the feedback is helpful over the long run.

[CPangracs]

Granted, developers often get mixed signals from wargamers because wargamers want different things from a game. It can be a challenge for developers to know exactly what they are doing right and what needs improvement. The grognards will grumble . . .

Having said that, I'm sure most developers do need the feedback, even if it isn't always what they want to hear. Yes, there some mixed signals, but's it's still honest user feedback. Warfare HQ gets mixed signals from the gaming public all the time. All the staff can do is attempt to sort through it and try to look at it from others' points of view. That's not always easy, espicially if it's something that we have put a fair amount of time and effort into. Nevertheless, the feedback is helpful over the long run.
Amen to that, Don! I must say, after my first foray into creating a game for commercial consumption, I now fully appreciate the dilemmas faced by the independent developer. It is difficult to get a "thick skin" about something you pour so much of yourself into. Personally speaking, I relish the constructive input from everyone on every forum, and count on honesty, however brutal, as long as there are viable alternatives presented.

It all comes down to a labor of love, and it is very hard for some people to understand if they haven't lived it. However, I wouldn't trade the experience for anything, and look forward to the next round of passionate masochism that is game developing!

[Don Maddox]

I'm glad that you're getting some use out of the forum. It's very rewarding to see this forum being used by both wargamers, and develops/publishers. That has been a goal of mine for some time.

[kbluck]

(I have heard complaints that the counter backgrounds-which KBluck seems to think are a good thing in TacOps-cover up too much of the map.)


I'd just like to point out that the pictures, side or top, even at half-normal size as is the default, still obscure more, in most cases considerably more, of the map than a TacOps-style counter icon. The counters could be done, generously, 24px square to allow sufficient detail in the silhouette. Even the relatively tiny dismount pictures are bigger than that. So, if we consider this a legitimate complaint, the advantage still rests with the silhouette counters over the pictures.

I've always said the op graphics are the best alternative --- there's a reason the military prefers them. They're information-dense, compact, and easily recognized at a glance. I think few players that will be attracted to an ultra-realistic simulation game in the first place would have much heartburn with learning to recognize them if they don't already, and with suitable "cheats" such as tooltips and context-sensitive help, the learning curve shouldn't be difficult in any event. But, if you're going to provide an alternative, I would provide the abstract silhouettes unless you're prepared to do the considerable extra development effort to make "realistic" images truly realistic.

--- Kevin

[Pat Proctor]

Kevin,

After the release of Raging Tiger, if you would like to build an Operational Symbols MOD, I will host it at our website as a download. I will also talk to Shrapnel about offering it as a download at their site.

[CPangracs]

...there's a reason the military prefers them. They're information-dense, compact, and easily recognized at a glance. ...
--- Kevin
Ever heard of JCATS or JANUS? Those simulations use icons similar to BCT Commander, and you can't really tell anything about the vehicle unless you are zoomed way in or you select it.

The ONLY way that icons will be TRULY realistic in a military technology sense are FBCB2 icons, which is what a soldier sees in his vehicle on his computer screen.

[Deltapooh]

I went with military symbols. Creating unique pieces of military vehicles from a "look down" perspective is very difficult. The fact that a piece in ATF doesn't exceed 200 pixel x 200 pixels(game begins, makes it that more difficult. I thought RT would offer some relief. However, in the end, it is still too few pixels to work with to make very detailed pieces. It's a very time-consuming process. (I'm not complaining. Just explaining the difficulty of the process.)

NATO symbols are more recognizable. However, I guess most casual players might not be too familiar with them. So, we need to find a balance.

[kbluck]

Ever heard of JCATS or JANUS? Those simulations use icons similar to BCT Commander, and you can't really tell anything about the vehicle unless you are zoomed way in or you select it.
The ONLY way that icons will be TRULY realistic in a military technology sense are FBCB2 icons, which is what a soldier sees in his vehicle on his computer screen.

JANUS is ancient, something like 30 years old, before the ergonomics of digital displays was a well-thought-out science. JCATS is a direct descendant. Developers in situations like that are generally faced with a considerable amount of intertia based on the "don't fix it if it ain't broke" philosophy.

The Navy and Air Force were early adopters of capabilities-based symbology, since their battles were digitized well before the Army. Given a new choice with the largely ground-up design of FBCB2, the Army has clearly followed their lead; not to mention the already existing guidance of FM101-5-1 for acetate overlays.

As for realism, I'm not really suggesting that the display should mimic exactly what a commander in his Stryker C2 vehicle would see. Simply that there is a very finite number of pixels available on contemporary computer displays, and there are real situational awareness virtues to packing as much intel into every pixel as possible. Duplicating FBCB2 isn't necessarily the best route, since it has certain other constraints that aren't really applicable to PC wargames; the enthusiast probably has better hardware than the soldier, and FBCB2 needs to be "playable" by a guy who hasn't slept in 48 hours while sitting in a moving, bouncing vehicle wearing MOPP4. (I've tried using a notebook in mask and gloves, and let me tell you its a *****.) The PC interface can probably be more condensed and use smaller fonts and fancier controls, for example.

Loose symbology wasn't such an issue with PnP games, since they could cover a lot more square inches on the tabletop, and recognizable images could be made much smaller with printing press resolutions in the vicinity of 1200dpi or better. Most computer screens are doing well to show 100dpi.

Modern computers still have difficulty matching the "grokability" of PnP games, in large part because most insist on reproducing the same old PnP conventions in a new medium where they aren't really appropriate. It's like designing a modem dialer to require you to push buttons that look like a standard touch-tone phone's keypad. The interface metaphor that makes sense for the physical device simply doesn't translate well to the digital world.

--- Kevin

[Hub]

If you want to expand your consumer base to include "casual gamers", I guess you have to add a number of different options. I just can't see games like ATF, RT, TacOps, POA 2, etc, being in a casual gamer's inventory though.

There's only a certain number of us whack jobs out there that like this stuff...

What about surveys? When a developer has an idea for a game or app, how would it be to post on appropriate venues, such as here, explaining what he intends to do, and how many are interested? That he's thinking of doing so-and-so and this-and-that, and who would like to have that, or what he's forgotten, or suggestions of what to put in?

For example, if a poll similar to the above had been available for what symbology to use in this hypothetical new app, the developer could examine the results and then make a decision as to how he wants to weight his time while he works on the project...

[CPangracs]

If you want to expand your consumer base to include "casual gamers", I guess you have to add a number of different options. I just can't see games like ATF, RT, TacOps, POA 2, etc, being in a casual gamer's inventory though.

There's only a certain number of us whack jobs out there that like this stuff...

What about surveys? When a developer has an idea for a game or app, how would it be to post on appropriate venues, such as here, explaining what he intends to do, and how many are interested? That he's thinking of doing so-and-so and this-and-that, and who would like to have that, or what he's forgotten, or suggestions of what to put in?

For example, if a poll similar to the above had been available for what symbology to use in this hypothetical new app, the developer could examine the results and then make a decision as to how he wants to weight his time while he works on the project...
The problem IMO is that we aren't the only developers who frequent these types of forums and, when all is said and done, these games are commercial ventures. Having original ideas stolen by developers isn't new, and prevents people like Pat and myself from putting-up polls or surveys to gauge the possible popularity of an idea. We basically have to look at what WE would like to see in a game, bounce the idea amongst ourselves, then choose a course of action. We then learn POST-release what does and doesn't work,...sometimes.;)

[esamn]

I like the operational graphics. My artillery turns out to be more accurate (for whatever reason) when using them instead of the pictures. :)

[kbluck]

if a poll similar to the above had been available for what symbology to use in this hypothetical new app, the developer could examine the results and then make a decision as to how he wants to weight his time while he works on the project...

FWIW, we've known for some time that RT would have a "side view" motif. What we didn't know was the practical effects of putting those on the actual map and playing an entire game with them.

What you're describing, Hub, is standard fodder for marketing types. But users are notorious for asking developers for what they're used to or what they think they can get, not what they really need. Speaking as a programmer, most of my user input distills down to "We want you to make everything work better in some vague, poorly defined way, but we'll fight any changes you propose tooth and nail."

The standard answer to finding what customers think of an existing product is the "beta test", but in my experience most beta testers, left to their own devices, produce little useful feedback. Few are ready to voluntarily do the detailed work necessary to isolate defects and come up with constructive criticism. Generally, they fall into two camps --- those who poke at it briefly in obvious, superficial ways and call it good if it doesn't break in some catastrophic way, and those who poke at it briefly in obvious, superficial ways and instantly hate everything about it regardless of whether it breaks.

Usually, the developer has to adopt some "carrot and stick" method of getting them to do serious work and exercise some meaningful portion of the program --- for example, offering them money but only if they produce a specified set of testing milestones. Obviously, the low margins of high-realism wargames offer little flexibility in that regard, so generally they have to rely on the enthusiasm of the fan base and hope for the best.

--- Kevin

[kbluck]

But anyway, getting back to the point of this thread:

I think it is reasonable to conclude from the overwhelming margin in the poll that when push comes to shove and serious wargamers settle down to serious play, they turn on the op graphics. My suspicion is that the "pretty" pictures are based more on ideas about marketing than actual gameplay considerations. The point I was trying to make with this thread is that I think it is doubtful that the very significant extra development effort devoted to the picture icons generates a meaningful return on investment in additional sales or customer goodwill. I think, for the most part, they are regarded as a curiosity to be examined briefly and then forgotten, having made no real impression. If gamers want to see pictures of their equipment, I think they will appreciate more the actual, legible action photographs in the Vehicle Specs help pages than seeing a thumbnail picture on their tactical map.

Hence my suggestion for future development in this line that the player's choice be between the existing op graphics (more or less) and new, rather generic, highly reuseable silhouette icons in place of the current picture icons, whether side or top view. I simply think the extraordinary cost of the picture icons in development time isn't paid back, and I think they have significant playability disadvantages to boot.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

At the risk of giving away too much, is this the type of picture icon people would like to see? These icons are at 200% per ATF engine size adjustment, so they can be quite a bit smaller. Also, there is enough room on the icon to include the military designation, such as "M1A3 SEP MBT".

http://www.pangracs.com/RagingTiger/Icon_Test1.jpg

http://www.pangracs.com/RagingTiger/Icon_Test2.jpg

Personally, I like these quite a bit! This may well be my first mod/patch/expansion. Thoughts? Suggestions?

[Hub]

I think those look better than the original side views. I would suggest making a change to the destroyed vehicle markers, as they are a little hard to see- maybe make the X a contrasting colour?

[kbluck]

At the risk of giving away too much, is this the type of picture icon people would like to see?

Heh! I wouldn't say that I'd "like" to see them... I still think most people will actually use the op graphics. But in terms of providing a more "cosmetic" alternative to the op graphics, sure, this is the sort of thing I was talking about.

I personally would make the silhouettes even more generic, such that it is not recognizably any particular model of tank, just a generic "tank" shape, to promote reuseability and avoid any "expectations" issues. (But, it looks like an M1 on the counter --- what do you mean its a Bradley?)

I wouldn't try to cram any text on there --- you already have tooltips if somebody can't remember what a particular counter is, and most of the time it would be wasted space as they would already know what the vehicle is.

Here's an example below. I realize that there may be an initial reaction that its "too much like TacOps", but let's face it --- there's only so many ways to arrange pixels into a tank-shaped clump at that small scale. Of course they're going to look similar. But since you don't need to honor realistic proportions, these images can be crammed onto a square icon about half the size of the ones you show above, and could also be made to a consistent size to make it easier to design the various arrows and overlay symbols to avoid stepping on the graphic.

Another wild idea --- no reason the "counter" couldn't be circular, right? That would save even more pixels while providing a "unique" appearance.

So, it comes down to a balancing act --- cosmetics and detail on one side, vs. small size and reuseability on the other.

--- Kevin

[CPangracs]

The problem is the zoom levels. TacOps has no such capabilities, therefore no such problem. An icon that looks recognizable and workable at one zoom doesn't always have the same properties at another zoom level. The only way around this is to create an icon that looks good at the 100% size at the smallest zoom that doesn't lose its recognizable form at the max zoom-out and at 50%. This entails more than simple line drawings on a 16-pixel square.

The answer, for ATF, lies somewhere in between what I posted and TacOps.

[kbluck]

The problem is the zoom levels.

Personally, I think the zoom slider is a bug. Regardless of what graphics are used, I think it should be made so that "100%" on the slider really is 100%, not 50% as it is now. That done, I'd also make it so that "100%" remains the default, so that authors would have some small assurance that most gamers will be seeing their graphics as the author drew them, and not some distorted shrunk-down version of them.

Assuming minimalist graphics were adopted, I would go further and constrain the zoom slider so that 100% was the minimum setting as well as the default. When graphics are already reduced to a minimal level, it simply makes no sense to allow them to be shrunk further --- they lose all utility. It would be a nice option to allow them to be enlarged, as a gamer may be visually impaired or have a really small monitor. But shrunk? No.

Even so, I think it looks fine zoomed up to 400%. It would look even better with proper antialiasing. And it isn't completely horrible even if you do allow it to be shrunk to half-size, which I don't recommend. Again, anti-aliasing would further improve the situation.

Notice what your icons look like by default, if the gamer doesn't manually adjust the slider to 200%. Not what you want them to see by default, I'm sure. That's what I'm talking about when I say the slider as it is now is a bug.

--- Kevin

[John Osborne]

At the risk of giving away too much, is this the type of picture icon people would like to see? These icons are at 200% per ATF engine size adjustment, so they can be quite a bit smaller. Also, there is enough room on the icon to include the military designation, such as "M1A3 SEP MBT".Personally, I like these quite a bit! This may well be my first mod/patch/expansion. Thoughts? Suggestions?

Hell, I'm afraid too say anything now. I like what I see Curt and thats all I'm going to say. I don't want to get jumped onto by you and Kevin :( So I'm going to leave it too you two guys.

Bye,

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Dunno - I played the beta only using Op graphics and the contours over colour map, mainly because I got disorientated when looking topdown at 3D terrain, but with 2D vehicles on their sides...

thst said, the top down pics of ATF, while nice, are better suited towards a turn based game, where movement animations aren't as important. The saide silohuettes are okay, but maybe make the dead vehicles more obviously dead - ie similar to Squad Battles big Red X and "lights-off" background.

[Ivan Rapkinov]

that being said - if "realistic" vehicle images were easy to see on the map, that wouldn;t be very "realistic" at all.

So "realisitic" would really be unreal, meaning that really "reailstic" would have to be really really realisitic in the sense that it would be so unreal to play due to not being able to find your really really realistic looking units really. That's just realisitcally "unrealisitc" really. ;)

[switch_back]

:nuts: thanks Ivan for creating a centrifuge in my head with that, im sure it makes sense, so im just going to nod my head now... :nuts:

;) :D

Without any arguement im just going to say I like the 2D side view of the units, just personal preference to the eye, no ultimate reason.
:cheeky: