Fear: UIv2

[Karkarov]

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.

Exactly.  It isn't that your idea wouldn't work, it would.  It would result in quite a bit of screen clutter though, which is why most WoW player UI's you see suck so much.  They just can't get past the idea of only putting what is actually needed on the screen. Just consider 6 character... 10 buttons per character (even that isn't their whole ability list like you said), means 60 buttons only for character actions on screen at all times?  Just a little too much.

 

That being said though you could handle it by just having a special toggle show up when you select multiple characters.  If you hit the toggle it makes the action bar for each currently selected character pop up, when you hit it again, it goes away.  Of course half the forums would start frothing at the mouth if such a simple but effective solution were used.  Still it is kind of a cannon to swat fly resolution either way.  In my personal opinion I think having that many buttons on screen even briefly would be more annoying than the benefit.

 

The question is why do you feel having the action bars away form the portraits is better than near the portraits?  Other people have already talked a little about why they like them closer but I just don't remember you stating many reasons as to why you prefer them being further away.

[Wolfenbarg]

The art for this game is beautiful. When the final passes are done it's going to look pretty breath taking, I think. To me, the idea of covering that up with a cumbersome user interface just to harken back to the days when pause heavy tactical games pretty much only had the mouse to rely on is crazy. A good interface is functional while not being intrusive. It can and should rely on hotkeys to a certain extent if it's going to keep assets from obstructing your view. I mean we did go pretty gung-ho about making this a game for a mouse AND keyboard, right? Why waste valuable real estate to provide a majority of that functionality to only one of those inputs? 

 

I can't for the life of me see why Dragon Age: Origins is looked on as a bad example. The complexity of the systems within the game were far less due to the fact that they weren't based on dungeons and dragons. However, the range of inputs you had for the game are GREATER than what you could accomplish in Baldur's Gate by a longshot. Positioning actually has a very drastic effect on how the outcome of a battle will go, because the numbers reflect the change. Cross class and cross spell combinations are possible, and greatly increase your chances of success, which requires more finesse to accomplish. It's not like those things are hard, though, because the user interface doesn't fight against you when you want to accomplish those things. Meanwhile when replaying an Infinity Engine game, I always wish there was an update that could give me a less intrusive and more intuitive interface. I not only want to have greater ease of use, but I want to see the art.

 

And most importantly, why is there so much anger, condescension, and frustration over something like this? Obsidian has made 3 sequels based on games with pretty bad user interfaces, and two of those games were incredible. I personally find Fallout: New Vegas to be their best game, and that game has one of the worst input selections I've ever seen. I'm not saying these things aren't important, but to see that the topic that gets people the most pissed off is something so trivial in the grand scheme of things is just madness. We have to be better than that.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Wolfenbarg

[Sensuki]

Oh we know Sensuki.  You wouldn't ever be caught on the forum of a company that makes such low quality games as Skyrim and Fallout 3.

Or one that allows no negative comments about their games or you get banned - and if you mention the word RPGCodex - you get banned, which was my point - but yes, you're right.

 

And regards to the other people calling bottom bar skeuomorphic designs cumbersome and saying that UI's need to have a good mix of keyboard and mouse use - some people only use the mouse whether by choice or by handicap (one arm etc). If you are designing for accessibility you need to be able to provide all of the required functionality. You can't just go - well I don't use the guard interface, take that off the UI and make it just a key shortcut, I don't use formations, take that off the UI, make it a shortcut, I don't use the select all button, take that off the UI and make it a shortcut.

 

I also really cannot fathom how a UI is intrusive if the UI elements are all contained within the UI. A UI that is based on pop-out elements has more characterisitics of being obtuse and intrusive than a contained UI - that has no functionality or menus that leaves it's boundaries.

 

As much as some people may not like the BG and IWD UIs - they are all contained. Nothing takes more than a couple of clicks, unless you have a Cleric/Mage that is high level and you are trying to select a level 9 Wizard spell to cast that is not a quick spell. They made great use of the available space, provided all of the functionality and accessibility required and no UI element left the UI. It was also partially and fully collapsible. Any statements otherwise are baseless - and those people have a fixation with seeing more of the screen.

 

Fine if people don't like them but I'd like to see someone try and prove that they are bad.

 

Skeuomorphic designs are mostly synonymnous with blobbers, RTS and tactical RPGs. You don't see many of any of these types of games anymore - which is why the 'modern' 'minimal' design is more popular today. There is nothing dated about the design.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Sensuki

[Hassat Hunter]

means 60 buttons only for character actions on screen at all times?  Just a little too much.

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.

The question is why do you feel having the action bars away form the portraits is better than near the portraits?

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.

Other people have already talked a little about why they like them closer but I just don't remember you stating many reasons as to why you prefer them being further away.

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...

[Karkarov]

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...

Okay but bear in mind... most monitors are wide screen now.  In fact you can't even buy a non widescreen TV or monitor anymore unless you are buying one used or just a really old one.  Or perhaps a special use one... Either way most people will be on widescreen.

 

Why does that matter?

 

Most people in general like to "center" the action.  Like if your party has engaged a dragon, you don't have the dragon in the bottom right corner of your screen your party around them and like the center of your screen is just the floor.  Most people would center on the dragon with their characters dotted around it.  You want focus on the action and it is just easier to do that if you put it in the center of your screen. So looking at the center of a wide screen monitor what's closer?  The bottom center or the center right?  Exactly.

 

Before any "but your mock up!!!!" nonsense starts I am still going to remind people my mock up ui was designed to try to be consistent with what Obsidian themselves posted and feedback i got in the thread.  I really don't care if it is center aligned or in a corner, or even if it takes the whole bottom.  All I care about is it not being U shaped and being able to hide the combat log.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Karkarov

[Kaldurenik]

About quickslots i can think of a way.

 

Have a few slots lets say 1-6 these are for the character you are on at that moment. Hold ctrl or shift + 2 to switch to a backup bar (takes that ones space) press the same keys to switch back (for that character).

7-0 are skills you will always see. Lets say there is a picklock skill or a stealth skill or town portal (just a example). This one is always up no mater what character you have selected. You can switch these by having like with the other bar (but another hotkey command) There are also arrows ^ or down if you want to switch the bars using the mouse. You could have more backup bars then one allowing you to customize abit more...

 

Anyway my 2cent.

[Hassat Hunter]

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?

[Sensuki]

Most people in general like to "center" the action ..... So looking at the center of a wide screen monitor what's closer?  The bottom center or the center right?  Exactly.

Pretty much all games have the action bar at the bottom of the screen. This is not a valid argument as to whether portraits should be as close to the action bar as possible however. Remember the user has to make three mouse movements (let's use your dragon use case). Select their character - which in an IE style game can be done by selecting the avatar or the portrait, select the ability/spell they want to use and then click on the dragon.

 

There has been no evidence given in this thread that supports the notion that action bar icons on the bottom center of a 16:9 screen and the portraits on the left side of a 16:9 screen are a bad idea. Mouse travel distance is the only thing you can really use and that is trivialized by the actual facts (which I have stated) about current mouse movement today.

 

The developers have merely stated a preference for it, they haven't really been able to back up their argument about it either - but then again they don't have to.

 

Before any "but your mock up!!!!" nonsense starts I am still going to remind people my mock up ui was designed to try to be consistent with what Obsidian themselves posted and feedback i got in the thread.

earlier ITT you have stated that your mockup was not targeted at crowd

 

My UI design does not "appeal" to any crowd.

Now apparently it is. Please be consistent.

 

All I care about is it not being U shaped and being able to hide the combat log.

Truth. At least you're 100% guaranteed that first wish, not so sure about the second one anymore though. If they end up going for a centered UI with gaps at the side, it will likely be one whole non-segmented piece of UI art.

Edited December 16, 2013 by Sensuki

[Karkarov]

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?

Maybe I just have better peripheral vision than most or something (or just too much practice) but I can normally look at center screen and without really "glancing" away still see what my hp is on most bottom placed health bars.  That isn't the case with bars on the right, I have to stop and look cause it is too far from center.  But you are definitely right that Widescreen is a more natural "view".

[Mor]

..it's better to have extra space on the sides for widescreens than to have non-widescreens not able to see all of it. It seems to me that this would be the same in the case of UI design...

Overall we seem to agree about most things. Just a little note about this. I'd bet that at least three of those: 1280×720, 1366×768, 1600×900(1680×1050?), 1920×1080 resolutions will be supported and anyone (wide or whatever) in between will get the UI the closet from bellow. (Which i believe to be the standard practice for games with painted UI for years)

[Mor]

Fine if people don't like them but I'd like to see someone try and prove that they are bad.

 

Skeuomorphic designs are mostly synonymnous with blobbers, RTS and tactical RPGs. You don't see many of any of these types of games anymore - which is why the 'modern' 'minimal' design is more popular today. There is nothing dated about the design.

Yes, yes... But do you have any actual suggestion on how to improve the current UI or just arguing for the sake of argument against the current ?

 

Btw as I noted before your UI in the OP fails to meet the requirements i.e. if you look closer at the concept, there indicators on the portraits and bellow. I suspect that the large indicator on the portrait is the character mode and small flags are the buffs/effect on the character. Which you removed in favor of making larger portraits.

 

Also what do you think about this:

 

Because its almost identical in size to what we had in the concept, only with pretty paint over and familiar faces.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Mor

[Sensuki]

Yes, yes... But do you have any actual suggestion on how to improve the current UI or just arguing for the sake of argument against the current ?

Obviously did not read the thread properly - I did indeed make a few mockups, the best one I posted in this thread earlier, if you actually read the thread properly then you wouldn't have to make these type of posts. Just like you failed to notice I had a link in my Attribute theory thread and then complained about the lack of a link for consolidation.

 

The mockup in the OP (and the Karkarov style mockup) were not intended to meet the requirements. They were to talk specifically about those styles of UI and were quickly thrown together in a couple of minutes in mspaint. There's nothing wrong with your little invention there, but remember that there also needs to be a third bar for class resources - such as the Monk wounds, and Cipher Powers. The Portraits in eternity are small, and the number of different status effect buffs will be hard to represent whether they are done on the portrait, or on the UI itself. Karkarovs 'icons' idea is not a bad one for a UI that is claustrophobic. It is possible that they will have to group status effects together and have them show with a mouse over or something.

[Azmodan]

I have read the entire thread and I'll quote JFSOCC, because that is a concise list of requirements.

 My 3 cents:

1) Wide screen monitor + isometric view, means I have to scroll down / up when casting spells to affect a character or monster that is the same distance away as a monster that is on the left or right edge of screen. A UI that uses up ~10% of the bottom of the screen in a solid band, is as inconvenient as blocking out 15-20% of the horizontal space (on the sides).

With this in mind, Karkarov's UI leaves a gap that reduces the waste of space.

 

2) Once I learn the hot keys, I typically pay the UI no mind. The only bit of UI I want is to open two or more characters' inventory screens simultaneously.

 

3) When pressing the "highlight" button, things like overall health (tint), negative effects (icons floating over characters' heads) should appear. If this happens, I don't even need to see my NPCs portraits in the UI.

 

 

The things I care about in a good UI:
1. I see nothing that I don't need to see. (I don't need to see the skill levels of some character I haven't selected, for instance)
2. I see everything which is currently important clearly. (like status effects)
3. All the information which I could potentially require is available within 3 clicks or button presses at the most. (Say I want to know what the skill level of a character I haven't is. select character, character screen, skills tab, that's 3, no more.)
4. I should be able to quickly switch between characters to give them orders
5. Any commands I give should take no more than 3 clicks. 1 for character selection, 1 for skill, ability or spell selection, 1 for target.
5b. Queued up commands are important information (#2)
6. I want to be able to move everything around, and adjust anything in size. I should be able to save those positions as presets.
7. Use as little screen real-estate as possible. I want to look at the map I'm playing on, not Robocop's HUD.
8. Shortkeys for everything.

[Karkarov]

The mockup in the OP (and the Karkarov style mockup) were not intended to meet the requirements. They were to talk specifically about those styles of UI and were quickly thrown together in a couple of minutes in mspaint. There's nothing wrong with your little invention there, but remember that there also needs to be a third bar for class resources - such as the Monk wounds, and Cipher Powers.

Well this is where there is ultimately a real problem.  We simply don't know enough about the classes of the game and their actual mechanics.  Yes Ciphers have some sort of additional resource but what is it called?  How is it tracked/used?  Is there a max amount you can have?  It is hard to build a UI element to account for these sorts of things since we basically know almost nothing about how they work or the mechanics behind them.  For all we know the Monk's Wound based abilities could fit right there on the normal Wound Meter in some way.

 

In other news just to be nice I decided to start work on a full bottom bar UI just to throw out a concept of how it could be done.  If anything it is going to be a great argument for why you don't need full bottom bar though because in all honesty there is going to be a noticable amount of dead space and some huge buttons.  I have already made the portraits alone 7 pixels wider and 4 taller than the portrait size you said Obsidian was going with for example.  I wanted to go full 100 pixels tall but that would have resulted in the bar taking up too much vertical space.  I am trying to limit it to about 160 pixels, which is roughly 15% of the vertical space at 1080.

 

To be painfully specific with a size comparison the avatars on this forum are 92x92 (not counting the grey highlight on the edges)... I am going for 80x90.  So noticeably thinner but not much shorter at all.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Karkarov

[Sensuki]

I believe the desired icon size is 32x32, though I think they will be rendering them at 48x48 or something.

 

I would assume that the Monk and Cipher resources would be represented as a bar the same as the Health and Stamina bars, it seems like the most space-optimal solution. Making use of a trivial amount of horizontal space (if vertical). Horizontal bars would obviously take up a bit more room IMO

 

I think your portrait size might actually be a bit too fat for the portraits that Kaz will be drawing - they will be roughly the same ratio as the IWD ones.

 

If you are going to take a stab - here are some things to take into consideration:

 

There is probably a guard interface, similar to the IE games.

The game will probably have a similar style "clock"

select all button needs to be on the UI at all times

Formation technically only needs to be there when multiple party members are selected

There will probably be three quick item slots

There will be something representing weapons. It *may* be a swap weapon button, but because you can buy extra weapon slots as a talent, it might need to be a 'box' for each - only visible when a particular character is selected, whereas multiple party members only needs an attack icon

There might be a skill use button.

I would recommend perhaps a minimum of 10 quick ability/spell buttons

And perhaps an ability/spell icon

 

There's probably more to take into consideration - but there are a few anyway.

[Mor]

We simply don't know enough about the classes of the game and their actual mechanics.  Yes Ciphers have some sort of additional resource but what is it called?  How is it tracked/used?  Is there a max amount you can have?  It is hard to build a UI element to account for these sorts of things since we basically know almost nothing about how they work or the mechanics behind them.  For all we know the Monk's Wound based abilities could fit right there on the normal Wound Meter in some way.

If they choose to go with additional resource bars, it would be easy to add with their current design. But since Cipher/Monk special resource suppose to be used only in combat, and only effect how soon can you use their special abilities. I suspect there might not be any additional resources bars, instead "charging" ability buttons like one of these(its just my crappy editing, it can be done much better):

 

 

Btw in the Obsidian concept there is a very limited amount of slots. So probably everything that has several options, where only the selected slot matters(Formation, Modes, equipped weapon etc) will be represented by a single slot that will double up allowing us to selected a different options.(so those have to stay glued to the top). Same goes for selecting a spells to cast.

 

No idea how they plan to fit to rest, which is why I am very much in favor of optional quick slot bar.

 

 

2) Once I learn the hot keys, I typically pay the UI no mind. The only bit of UI I want is to open two or more characters' inventory screens simultaneously.

Yes hotkeys are a must once once they fininilize the UI. Also the inventory bit, shouldn't be a problem, because we are going to have a personal\shared inventory.

 

 

 

Yes, yes... But do you have any actual suggestion on how to improve the current UI or just arguing for the sake of argument against the current ?

Obviously did not read the thread properly - I did indeed make a few mockups, the best one I posted in this thread earlier, if you actually read the thread properly then you wouldn't have to make these type of posts. Just like you failed to notice I had a link in my Attribute theory thread and then complained about the lack of a link for consolidation.

 

 

If your best is the one with pretty big portraits, then it has the same problem I mentioned in the previous post.. as for Karkarovs mockup, his style aside, he at least passed on the design. Other than that you tend to veer between what you don't like, who you don't like, arguing about hypothetical which you agree are irrelevant here.. so its hard to follow, If I missed an actual suggestion on how to improve the current bottom UI, then i apologize, lets focus on it from now and on.

 

As for the Attributes, i'll say it once. Assume that not everything is about you..

Edited December 17, 2013 by Mor

[Sensuki]

If I missed an actual suggestion on how to improve the current bottom UI, then i apologize, lets focus on it from now and on.

I thought you meant current UI as in the UI from Art Update 54. We haven't seen an update from Obsidian yet. We know it's no longer like Karkarov's, but we don't know if it's in the style of my OP either.

 

Assume that not everything is about you..

Maybe not, but in every thread I have seen where I have posted and you have posted, you are questioning my statements - "where did you get this information?" "If there is no actual quote then it is no evidence". In that particular one, there was a quote and you missed it. Some of the things you are correct about such as if I make an assumption (which I usually state is an assumption) that turns out to be wrong, but as far as actual information that the devs post elsewhere goes, there's not many more reliable/up to date sources on the forum.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Sensuki

[Karkarov]

Hey I bet you guys totally forgot I said I was doing one last concept just to satisfy Sensuki's desire for a decent full bottom bar ui design?  Well I didn't, and here it is.  I would like to remind anyone who might feel the need to immediately go in looking for things not to like of two things before they look at the image.

 

1: It literally has everything you could possibly want ever on the ui, no really.  There is no function you could want that is not included in some way, that said I am short on time when I am doing this original post and it would literally take me an hour to explain it all so I am not going to do that at time of initial post.  I will post some stupidly obscene and detailed FAQ about it all later.

 

2: This ui is not what I would use if I were going to be the "man" on UI.  There is no need for a full bottom bar in my opinion you can get all these functions and use much less space than I did easily.  It won't be as "artisitic" and may not look as cool, but it would still be able to look good and would work.  This is just how I would do it if it did have to be the full bottom bar.  I did that to satisfy people who wanted such a concept (like Sensuki) and to also show just how much space would ideally be taken + lost to oversized buttons and art features to make it take up that full bottom bar.

 

So last thing before pic... I decided to take inspiration from the backer portal for my design.  You will notice many elements lifted from there (though no where near all of them) and it informed a lot of my color choice.  Bear in mind I will post multiple versions of this in links later so you can see it will different released screenshots as a BG.  It might "look" really dark in some places but I have tested it against tons of images it looks good with all of them in my opinion.

 

Also for those who want specifics.  This is a 1080 image (1920x1080), and was designed at that resolution.  This is not something I made at some huge res then scaled down to make it look better.  Why 1080, because it is the most common modern resolution that's about it. The UI is also exactly 160 pixels tall (not counting the slight drop shadow) which is 2 pixels short of exactly 15% of the vertical space at 1080.

 

Edited December 24, 2013 by Karkarov

[Wolfenbarg]

So when you select a character and look through more abilities, where would they pop up? Would they take up the dead space on the left? If so then functionally it seems like it would be better to put the portraits on the left, though it would be... uglier.

 

I have to say it's a very beautiful mock-up. Nice work.

[Silent Winter]

Aesthetically, I prefer your previous effort (quoted earlier - with the gap in the middle) - but I think that's down to the colours - this one seems too colourful in the centre (reds and blues and pinks) - maybe it's the portraits' colours as well.  I prefer slightly subdued colours for the UI as it's less distracting.

Function wise - seems ok.  Personally, I prefer to have portraits on one side and the dialogue bar in the middle but maybe that's just what I'm used to.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Karkarov: As you well know, I share your view on what UI would be best for PE, but for being a full bottom bar you have done a very fine job covering all the bases, as it were.

 

And the design from the backer portal, I don't particularly like it very much. The braided, gnarly wooden theme is distracting and it actually doesn't blend in very well with most terrain predicted. And is even blending in a good thing? How about nothing to blend at all, as in transparent and sleek, and pop ups when you need them?

[Mor]

[snip]

very nice work, you really seem to know your way around graphic editing, it looks very nice and works well inside within the limitations. I think its smart to put the portraits/abilites button right in the middle and I really love the inventory backpack, journal and character buttons(kind of reminds me commandos UI), with that said its hard not to notice how compared to them the rest of the buttons which will take most of my attention are hard to distinguish.(like the number 5 over what looks like a red potion)

 

So, I know there is a very little vertical space for you to work with, but if possible i'd make everything other than the portraits bigger even by a couple of pixels:

1. Starting with the bottom indication circles under the portraits. (Btw I don't know what the devs are planing, but as is unless they are supposed to be some kind of color coded general indicators, that you'd have to hover over the character portrato see what it actually means, I don't know what the point)

2. The abilities(?) buttons on top of the portraits, you can easily steal few pixels from the wide panel above.

3. The actions(?) button to the left of the portraits, you can easily make them larger.

Edited December 26, 2013 by Mor

[Karkarov]

So when you select a character and look through more abilities, where would they pop up? Would they take up the dead space on the left? If so then functionally it seems like it would be better to put the portraits on the left, though it would be... uglier.

 

I have to say it's a very beautiful mock-up. Nice work.

Thanks for the compliment.  Uh there are two places you could see ability buttons in the UI.  1: the center bar which can be changed between 3 different "sets" using the center buttons (you see the small yellow and two gray ones, it's those). 2: You can click on the letters on the far right side where the combat log is.  This swaps it to either being a dialogue log, a combat log, or just shows the two bars you currently aren't using in the center.  Only thing is the center bar would obviously be quick keys the right side bars... not so much.

 

 

And the design from the backer portal, I don't particularly like it very much. The braided, gnarly wooden theme is distracting and it actually doesn't blend in very well with most terrain predicted. And is even blending in a good thing? How about nothing to blend at all, as in transparent and sleek, and pop ups when you need them?

It looks okay against most things, like I said can post more images later.  Pop out UI elements would be nice but remember!  That would require using some UI design ideas not available in 1994 .    I can understand the desire for wanting a "solid" UI but still feel pop out elements would be better than most of the stuff likely to be seen.  Such as little + or - buttons that let you add or remove action bars etc etc.  I did still refuse to include the useless static formation buttons since just having your quick bar turn into formation buttons when more than one person is selected seems like a no brainer.

 

I will post more stuff about this just been too busy to sit down and do it for right now.

[DCParry]

Hey Kark - Did you use WoW icons just drive some people crazy on the boards 

 

;-)

[Karkarov]

Hey Kark - Did you use WoW icons just drive some people crazy on the boards 

 

;-)

No   They are just really easy to use, readily available to download all over, and have a plethora of different styles that can fit all the things I need.

 

That and.... Ok well.... maybe.

 

JK