Hassat Hunter

@ Azmodon; I assume they would take that into account and if you return to the questgiver while already completed the quest have the option of saying so. @ The Rest; I object to having to reward players for everything they do, and that every little thing should have some worth to the player. What happened to 'more conversations is it's own reward'?

I'm just going to say I'm glad PoE uses RtwP, and glad I didn't back Planescape. We'll see later if Torment can make a good impression besides using turnbased, but for now, I really don't mind letting it slip to the back of my head and forgetting all about it till it's on a Steamsale or something...

Well, there are the many loading screens (going from there to fleet to ops makes guild ship kinda painful a place to start rather than fleet no) and the fleet quicktravel has an 8 hour cooldown combined with other legacy travels (which, in my humble opinion is a mistake.) It was simply the only thing I could think of that would make grouping on a ship for ops more useful rather than less useful on that ship.

So, logging in Steam I was met with a commercial of the Just Cause 2 Multiplayer Mod. And now I'm wondering how they did that, and if I could get a 'certain mod' also on Steam... provided I know *how*

I got a widescreen too. And I know about the focus on the bottom. Playing The Old Republic at the moment, I generally only LOOK at the bottom, and not what happens on the screen. Is that good? No, it isn't. Even with widescreens it's easier to see what's in the sides of the screen rather than refocus your eyes to the bottom. Human sight has a much easier time looking at stuff left and right than up or down. This has nothing to do with mousemovement or anything, just human FOV. Why do you think widescreen is so popular in the first place?

I don't see the use of guildships. That functionality should be on your OWN ship. And with most of our guild usually at widly different places (space, fp, operation, dailies, fleet, out questing, leveling)... it's very unlikely you wont walk around solo anyway. EDIT: I suppose it could be handy if all operations are a loadscreen away from the ship, rather than forcing you to travel to the fleet/oricon/makeb. But I somehow doubt BioWare would do something like that

Well, that would just be quick-items. Which as I said, can be solved instead of having 6x10, just have 10. On a bar that is replaced with other functionality if other buttons (spells, abilities) are called. Cause I rarely selected using the portraits? They were mainly there for information... and they convey that purpose far less if small and on the bottom, instead of being able to be easily read as in BG1/2. I don't like them further away, I don't really mind that much... I just want to have characters being easier to be quickly read about their information, keep looking at the bottom wont cut it...

Not exactly so obviously. Not always do you select by the portrait, or clicking. One can drag. My idea mostly revolves around... "why change the HUD based on the selected char, why limir options for one character" So if you select your whole band, go to the bottom bar and select 'skills' you get ALL of them of the selected characters. No character-swapping needed, no little actions (I seriously doubt you can put all actions and spells on the bar under or above the portrait). The wide-screen can be perfectly used for it, it's width allowing many many different things to appear at once. So in the end, you don't even need to CHANGE characters that often anymore. How's that for reducing strains on your wrists? The only problem I'm still thinking about though is the quick-slots mentioned. Allowing 10 slots for all characters will add to screenpolution if allowing to use all of them to appear at the same time. I suppose having 10 generic for all works, but I wonder if people would be satisfied by such a solution.

I think that's a know issue yeah, heard of it before. Anyway, had a bunch of ops last week (first time ever 150/150 on ultimates) so not too fond this week to sit on the fleet and wait. I wanted to be somewhere not laggy, not ****-looking, where the general chat atleast tried to show some human dignity, and where I did not have to wait 30m doing nothing just waiting for a team. And thus, the only ops I had was with the guild... :/ It really sucks after so long they still haven't devised a proper way to do operations without fleet-hugging. I hate that pile of junk. The less time I spend there the better. But that makes it impossible to ops :/. GF is no use, only 8 people and very few operations are on it. Is it too much to ask that at lvl 55 I can enjoy the old planets too instead of being a flee-junky? BW surely assumes so. But why they want us to spend so much time in an ugly location and so few in more aesthetically pleasing ones... I don't know. And it bugged the hell out of me this week...

Where's my dislike button? Anyway, if you want "move on" try Dragon Age: Origins. It moved on, with modern features like * Less teammates * Consolited user-interface * Floaty HUD * On-demand teammate talks * Full (and thus very downsized) VO * The modern interpration of RPG in those Dwarven tunnels or the endgame. * EPICNESS * And what not... And then they moved on EVEN MORE with Dragon Age 2. Though somehow, you didn't like that? How odd. Radical change to 'modernism' seems to suit you better than keeping the good old and working on it to improve that according to the quoted post. Now I'm confused what you want...

Well, it makes a lot of sense the backers with the most trust and interest in Obsidian's games would also frequent their boards.

"It was enriched from a Bethesda game." Well, that's not saying much. And no, I'm not that fond of Fallout: New Vegas.

Still not saying me much, or why they are exeptionally needed at the portraits. A pull-out system as described as above would work I think (actually I suggested something like that before in previous HUD discussions. Click the portrait, move letf/right (depending on location of the sidebar) then move even further left/right for the action itself. Depends if left or right handed, by a single-bar you could allow them to be swappable to guarantee optimal performance for both handed. Rather than base it just on the movement of us right-handers. Really depends on how often you need those buttons to sacrifice a good overview of your characters status up for them. Also the UI horribly bad and intruisive and a pain to work with for the duration of the game Selecting by mouse by clicking, dragging and all that will probably be in too, so while yes, it may save mouse-time for selecting from portraits, the same might not be true for these 2 control methods. I don't know which of the 2 is more popular by players. Anway, the biggest thing I hope is that the OE-devs learned of all the bad things they made with IWD2's HUD and not repeat them. And who knows, maybe their bottom bar HUD may postively suprise me. But since IWD2 is still called often as a heavy influence, I can never assume that myself.

You will be able to change your shipping adress before it finally ships.

Stop ruining good story based game with that open-world BS. Arkham Asylum The Witcher And now this? Open-world is so overrated, and waters down plots :/. Not exactly the direction I want Obsidian to go...

okay, I bite. Why *MUST* the portraits and action bar be together. What is the action bar anyway (I can't see anything in the mockup). Is it a quick overview what actions are taken? Then it can be at the bottom right, since it needs no interaction? Is it to quickly select quick-spells or attacks? Then it can be at the bottom too I think, with hotkeys. If you have a party selected you can even use multiple without needing to select portraits again. You can select them ingame, then go to the bottom, then up. So many sollutions. And if they really must, for whatever reason, be next to the portraits, we can always use the space other mockup have designated for that horrid blue/red lines since the bigger portraits allow proper blood But also, there should be more than enough space to still do it under the portraits if they so desire. I wont object to some functional spacing between portraits, why would I? I think your still confusing requirements with decisions.

I don't mind there wont be an U-shaped interface. I do realise it's 2013. But an L-shaped would definitely be prefered to just a bottom bar to me. I'm not ignoring what Josh says. I just know the UI wont be finalised at this point yet, so if it's a bottom now, it wont mean it can't still change this stage in development. If it was as finalised as you think it would be, we would have already seen screenshots of it. But they wont yet since they know they might still change severly after this point. Josh isn't the only developer. And from what I read Koz is actually the one working on making it all a reality (art-wise anyway, surely someone else adds in the workings and framing and scaling and what-not).

I do wish they added some more ship unlocks... a mission terminal would be sweet, and with GSF now, a pvp terminal... The less time on the fleet the better. Sadly one needs to spend a lot of time there to do operations *sad puppy* Horrible design.

Can we please NOT have "back X and get ingame profits like vendors and special items"... Pre-order exlcusives, DLC and all that crap is the current time I want to get away from with PE. Seriously, it's bad enough that some publishers DO it, it gets even worse if some gamers actually WANT that to happen... like what?

Yeah, not much interest here either. TOR has the redeeming factors of Star Wars and KOTOR, but clearly shows story in MMO wont really work properly anyway. So it's a complete and utter waste of OE's talent...

No, it's most KS project starters having NO idea how long it takes to make a game. Their management may be good, but producing it on that exact time, it will still be crap. So you're saying you would really want Obsidian to still hold true to the May 2014 release date rather than the Winter 2014, because they stated that on their KS? Really? Non-game projects get delayed all the time too. There's a reason management tools have "projected end dates" and "actual end dates", which are used to better guess the duration of future projects.

Sadly, a good UI on a modern game is hard to find. I'll see what I can find, but there's been a massive change to crappy interfaces over the past years. Mostly to accomidate controllers. DA2 and Skyrim being great offenders of making things far more complicated than need be. But also The Witcher II's extremely huge item inventory so you could see about 6 items at one time. What? Yes, I like full-screen interfaces. But there's no reason what-so-ever to put very little detail in each screen requiring you to swap all the time. Imagine if in the BG games you couldn't change inventory screen by clicking the portrait, but had to go ingame, inventory, ingame, inventory other member, ingame, inventory other member. It would make you mad. Yet many modern interfaces use such a crappy system. The other end, you have Dragon Age: Origins, where instead of full-screen they simply use a tiny popup in the middle, also with huge text and icons, still requiring you to scroll a lot and have no clear overview of what you want to know. I definitely don't want pop-up stuff like the picture on the last page, full-screen information screens all the way. But we can use the current resolutions to merge more systems into one screen, inventory and character overview for example. Solution 3; Make 3 UI's in the highest res possible, 4:3, 16:9 and 16:10 and scale them back according to resolution. There, was it that hard? Much easier than making one UI to fit all 3 sizes, or make a HUD per resolution (seriously?) And as I stated before I do think 3 bars is no longer needed, but a bottom *and* side instead of one or the other seems most efficient. Especially since portraits at the sides will tell you much more than at the bottom at a quicker glance. With only one side-bar, you should be able to pick your desired side, so left-handed or right-handed have the quickest option to select all they want and need. Then don't use smaller portraits? I mean, why would one want to decrease them anyway. I looked at the mockup again, and the modifiers under it are TINY (seriously, I hadn't even noticed them before). Unviewable. Is that good? The portraits are IMPORTANT. You can nible on space elsewhere all you want, but portraits would definitely be ill-advised. I agree 2 colors at the same-time can be confusing, which is why I, personally, suggested only 1 of the 2 active (one in-combat, the other out-of-combat). And no, if anybody has a better suggestion than the blood I would yield. But so far, the only thing anyone used is a red and blue bar next to the portrait. Which is horrible. And thus I keep to blood, yes. Still; None of this is set in stone. UI is definitely not finalised in this stage of development, and it can still be greatly modified from what currently is in place. So it's not as fixed in stone as you may want to make out. I'd rather give my support to 2 bar UI than just giving up on that, and suggest things for a single bottom bar UI even if I know I won't even support my own suggestions then. Would be a waste of post-time and space. I didn't even make this thread . Kind off odd hearing 'just accept it' from you, the OP on a thread complaing UI design. Obviously you don't take your own advice, and for good reasons I might add. Need I remind you again? "They said they're doing a degenerating items system." Now some suggestions definitely are too late now (make it turn-based! Make it in space!) but on this subject, it's still well within paramaters for change. It seems you've completely given up on UI-changes. Which is weird. If you do, why did you make this thread in the first place? Or is it purely and only allowed to discuss bottom-bar designs, instead of all UI designs? If so you better change the thread's name to make it clearer or something.

You know what's funny? When this thread started, I was in full agreement with Sensuki. But as more and more posts are made, the completely oposite starts to happen and I start to completely disagree with any and all points made. It's... odd. Also, IWD2's HUD was horrible. Absolutely freakin' HORRIBLE. The less we take it as base for PE the better. If a OE-developer ever even thinks "Hey, this is how it worked in IWD2" they should immediately discard it. It was THAT bad. I kid you not. I have no idea what Black Isle thought when they went from the excellent BG2 interface to that steaming pile of IWD2 interface. The portrait size ain't fixed... so there goes 1 point against 'zero chance.' There have been 2 different suggestions so far to deal with the new mechanisms that doesn't make it look like a 5 year old drew 2 bars on your HUD, so there's 2 points against 'zero chance.' And for some odd reason it works far better than having a seperate tiny 2 bars to it, as can also be seen in other RPG's using said system, which makes 3 'zero chances.' Or as they say in baseball... "You're out!" Then they could add... *drumsounds* a verticle side-bar. Yeah, yeah, I know, awesome idea right. Sadly I didn't think it up myself... some company named BioWare already did in 1999. They seemed to have lost their excellent UI designers around 2002 or so I think? Then they can make the portraits pretty high, I got about... 1080 pixels for them. Enough space too for additional buttons like journal and stuff you say? Hey, that's an excellent idea... I wish I suggested it before... wait, I did. Sure, modern PC's no longer require the 2 bar's of the BG's, but I believe 1 bar definitely beats putting all the stuff at the bottom. Also allows to make the bottom bar less high. And since there's more horizontal space than verticle (1900 pixels for me) in the end more screen is won to boot. Awesome, ain't it? How so? It worked in BG2 right? Until the end where status effects just went way out of hand. It's not really the scope most of us are against... more the use of resources, prefering it to be used on other, more pressing matters like QA and improving existing content rather than adding new. If you think all no voters are simply "against added scope" you interpretate data like a BioWare employee (read: badly). I'm not so sure. I still fear a travesty like the IceWind Dale II interface. Which was, if you haven't mentioned me saying it yet, bad. Very very bad. I was kinda hoping they would just stick to BG-style, with the "spiritual BG successor" and all, but that art update crushed my dreams. Then they said it would be modified... *hope up* but that hope didn't nearly stay there long enough, and is pretty much in the 'fear for disaster' level again. I have faith in OE, but it's just that their last attempt (as Black Isle) to re-make an IE interface turned out so damned horrible, one can't help but feel insecure about it.

Oh yeah, horrible interfaces due to consolidation (The Elder Scrolls, Witcher II, Dragon Ages) are common-day these days. A good PC interface? Impossible to find. Let's not wring the only good one in production just so people who aren't even the target goal of this game can buy it, play it 1 hour, then discard it since it's too much talk, too little action and michael bay...

Looks like my title got updated, thanks! Lythe Vodaine can rest easily again now