Yet another UI suggestions thread

[Sarex]

There is going to be a solid hud option apparently

 

Probably waiting for the final version of the GUI, although as far as I have seen there were no changes worth mentioning.

[Shevek]

Make everything rebindable. Let people do whatever control scheme they want.

[Gairnulf]

Changing the control scheme would have been bad from a UX perspective IMO. Some of the control stuff that they have changed isn't good anyway.

 

It's like removing the start bar from windows when people have been used to using it forever - horrible idea.

I could argue against this example, the start button and start bar were never removed, they just werent't the default serting. And having the Metro start screen instead of the start menu has its benefits, with very little in terms of drawbacks, once you get past the initial shock.

 

Except IE games have been out of style for decades. New control schemes have taken over and players have gotten used to that. IT's like what rumsteak was saying about the next button being on the bottom right.

 

Nowadays, everyone right clicks to move/action. Left clicks to select. All games do this. Who cares what a old system did when everyone else is now used to the new one.

Control schemes are not subject to fashion, because they the selves are a solution to a problem - provide the most efficient interface for the kind of gameplay you are offering. Control schemes should change with optimization, not fashion in mind. Having convenient and intuitive controls will always be in fashion. Also, are you sure that right click to move is a habit from "nowadays"? I think it dates back to at least Warcraft I

 

That problem is because they haven't designed the UI properly (solid HUD). In the IE games (yep, I'm using it again) if you misclicked on the UI, you just clicked on the UI and nothing happened, it didn't move your characters in the game world.

PE still has hotspots on the UI where the mouse interacts with the game world, and many of the keyboard shortcuts do as well.

 

You can change your key bindings to right click move instead, but both buttons are needed to facilitate move/select and formation rotate.

Solid HUD, my thoughts, and words in other threads, exactly. And I should add, solid HUDs are good not only for preventing you from clicking in the space between elements, if it was just that, they could have solved it by having a solid HUD but with a transparent background. What I like about the solid HUD is that it establishes a clear boundary, between the part of the screen where the gameplay takes place, and the part of the screen where your tools/controls are. I don't gain much from having a few hundreds of square pixels more to see, but I gain much when my gameplay part of the screen has a simple and clear rectangular shape.

 

There is going to be a solid hud option apparently

This is great news IMO. Can you get me a source for it? Edited November 18, 2014 by Gairnulf

[Sensuki]

Yep, go to graphics options and you'll find a checkbox for Solid HUD. But it hasn't been created yet so the art isn't there.

[ctn2003]

I LOVE the load screen icons they look like Icewind dale 2 but lol i dont ever want to see them as mutch as i do now.

[Pipyui]

That problem is because they haven't designed the UI properly (solid HUD). In the IE games (yep, I'm using it again) if you misclicked on the UI, you just clicked on the UI and nothing happened, it didn't move your characters in the game world.

 

PE still has hotspots on the UI where the mouse interacts with the game world, and many of the keyboard shortcuts do as well.

 

You can change your key bindings to right click move instead, but both buttons are needed to facilitate move/select and formation rotate.

 

Alright, that helps for those who prefer the skewmorphic UI, but we've already seen before just how divided we all are on that UI style.  What about those (great many) who don't prefer skewmorphic?  It certainly helps that the controls can be changed, but why make the default scheme so clunky?  Why not let the IE mouse purists (I don't mean that in a derogatory sense; I just imagine that, perhaps incorrectly, they're a smaller audience than those who prefer the RTS scheme) change the controls to their liking?

 

The control set for a game such as this almost precisely mimics those of your typical RTS after all, and RTS's have been using the reversed scheme successfully from the very beginning.  Other top-down games have likewise adopted it.  I guess I just don't understand why the RTS scheme shouldn't be the default when, to my mind, it's an ostensibly better layout.

[TerenZero]

I have hardly even noticed the left-click vs. right click or other control differences. I just started playing and it all worked intuitively based on my having played all the IE games and I am sure plenty of other similar models.

[Hormalakh]

All of what we are arguing here is moot.

 

You can rebind your control set up for whichever system you want. Unfortunately, however, the wise developers made formation rotation only bindable to a single button so it makes it difficult to have your move, interact, attack, and formation rotation on the same button.

 

Currently both left and right click move the characters (I'm assuming that's not how IE had it, Sensuki, since you love IE's control scheme so much?). And I believe only left click attacks and interacts.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Sensuki]

Yes that's exactly how the IE games had it. Some people have a foggy memory I guess?

 

Alright, that helps for those who prefer the skewmorphic UI, but we've already seen before just how divided we all are on that UI style.

It's their fault for doing a silly design with spaces between the portraits. And you can re-bind the controls, you know.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Sensuki

[Pipyui]

 

Alright, that helps for those who prefer the skewmorphic UI, but we've already seen before just how divided we all are on that UI style.

It's their fault for doing a silly design with spaces between the portraits. And you can re-bind the controls, you know.

 

Here, I'll help you out a little:

Alright, that helps for those who prefer the skewmorphic UI, but we've already seen before just how divided we all are on that UI style.  What about those (great many) who don't prefer skewmorphic?  It certainly helps that the controls can be changed, but why make the default scheme so clunky?

 

( Sorry, I can't help but be just a little snarky )

 

I'm not gonna get into the skewmorphic UI debate - I'm personally rather ambivalent on the matter (like skewmorphic style, hate skewmorphic footprint on my precious screen real estate).  I suppose I should be more explicit in my statements: I'm not necessarily gung ho for precisely the RTS control scheme as I've described it (though I do prefer it), what I am confused about is just why the left mouse button in the current default scheme has to be used for movement, selection, and UI interaction.  It clearly causes frustration to at least some, and I imagine many, people using the non-skewmorphic UI to have one button doing so many things in-game where the contexts determining each behavior are so easily discombobulated (that is a fun word).

Edited November 19, 2014 by Pipyui

[Sensuki]

The control scheme has nothing to do with skeuomorphism. It is the way it is because that's how it was in the IE games. There's a couple of minor differences with the RMB that need to be changed - move needs to auto-rotate formation like LMB and it should be a cancel+move.

 

Both mouse buttons have an inbuilt command. Left click is move and select. Left click hold is marquee select. Right click is move with no select, and right click hold is formation rotate.

 

I do not think either of these should be changed at all, and that RMB should also include a cancel+move no select.

 

I can understand if people want to swap the functions of RMB and LMB over, but I don't think it will be possible (or at least very tricky) to code it so that you can split the functions without breaking 'how it works' - and breaking how it works would not be okay by me.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Sensuki

[Pipyui]

Cool, I think we're closer to the same page, and I clearly need to learn how to spell skeuomorpic, but that's not the crux of my argument.  Thank you for explicitly clarifying the mouse controls though, it certainly does help since I don't have access to the beta (I've been hitherto gleaning them from past comments).  And I do apologize if my previous comment came out a little aggressive; I confess that I let myself get a tad irritated to perceive my comment before being disregarded wholesale (though I did make liberal use of disarming smiley-faces).

 

The part that has me concerned is the redundancy here:

Left click is move and select. Left click hold is marquee select. Right click is move with no select, and right click hold is formation rotate.

 

Now I know that the IE games did it this way, but can't we all agree that it's kinda silly?  I'm not a big fan of the "let's just put in another toggle!" argument, but I think in this instance it would be nice to have a toggle to enable/disable IE-like mouse, and thus give the option:

Left click is move and select. Left click hold is marquee select. Right click is move with no select, and right click hold is formation rotate.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Pipyui

[Sensuki]

Now I know that the IE games did it this way, but can't we all agree that it's kinda silly?

Nope. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I've played heaps of games that split them, but for party based RPGs I honestly prefer left click move and select.

[Pipyui]

I'm not arguing at all with the second half of that, some people certainly do prefer left/right-click movement, but "there's absolutely nothing wrong with it?"

 

I don't like left-clicking to move. I'm okay with right-clicking, but not left clicking. Sometimes I wanna left-click-select a character but I misclick and my whole party moves to a new undesired position. Sometimes I wanna click a mid-bar button or a character portrait, and I misclick by 1 or 2 pixels, causing my mage to head straight into a group of 4 beetles.

 

For some people (I will include myself here, though I haven't played it yet) this scheme presents a demonstrable issue.  You can't tell me this is any less frustrating than which side of the screen the combat log ends up on!

Edited November 19, 2014 by Pipyui

[Sensuki]

Yes I can, because I have been playing games with left click move since 1998. It's not my fault that you haven't been playing them as much as I have.

 

You will have the same difficulty reading the combat log on the fly as I do, but you might not care as much as I do.

[Pipyui]

Nobody's at fault for me not replaying as many cRPGs as you have (well, I am, but that's besides the point), vilifying me and others for it doesn't make your argument any more (or less) valid, and neither does your abundance of play add stock to it.  Look, I'm not interested in throwing ad hominems around, nor for the circular logic of "I have faith in my faith, therefor faith", I leave that for certain other forums.  I suppose I may have incited this by making reference to your argument for which side the combat log should reside, but you'll have to believe that that was a call for understanding and not an attack.

 

What I was aluding to is that, you believe that a left-side combat log is ostensibly better than a right-side, and maybe you are correct.  And what if all the cRPGs you've played had this log on the right?  By your argument this is an ostensibly flawed system - would you still argue for it so zealously simply because you'd grown accustomed to it?  You may prefer the right-side log in this context, but I have to believe that you wouldn't hesitate to also concede that perhaps it isn't the best for everyone.  Likewise, you may prefer and insist upon the IE-style mouse controls, but I have to believe that given demonstrable evidence that it does cause problems to no few people, you could admit that perhaps it isn't the perfect solution for everyone.

[Sensuki]

What I was aluding to is that, you believe that a left-side combat log is ostensibly better than a right-side

Nope. I've never said that. I've said that it would be fine in the middle or on the left. I don't care as long as it's not on the right.

 

Due to the fact that the portrait area in this game is pretty large horizontally, the middle doesn't seem like a valid option.

 

You can argue against the control scheme all you like but they aren't going to change it. Because that's how the IE games did it. That is the main reason for many things on this project. Whether they were implemented with the understanding of why the IE games did it is another matter entirely.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Sensuki

[Pipyui]

 

What I was aluding to is that, you believe that a left-side combat log is ostensibly better than a right-side

Nope. I've never said that. I've said that it would be fine in the middle or on the left. I don't care as long as it's not on the right.

 

My mistake, but the insight does not affect the argument.

 

You can argue against the control scheme all you like but they aren't going to change it. Because that's how the IE games did it. That is the main reason for many things on this project. Whether they were implemented with the understanding of why the IE games did it is another matter entirely.

 

This isn't strictly true though; we already know that PoE implements many changes against the IE standard (like, dare I say, kill xp, resting).  For me, the control mapping wasn't really a defining factor of what made IE IE.  Yet, considering the controls are the means by which a player fundamentally interacts with their game, I can only hope I don't speak solely for myself when I advocate for the option to break here from this IE standard should I or others so choose.  Having remappable controls is fantastic, but doesn't really help me here when I have to have [select, move, UI interaction] all mapped to the same control when they should be disparate (at least the move, anyway ).

[Sensuki]

You can feel free to do that, but I will oppose anyone who mentions the idea on the forums and I'm 99.99% positive that they won't change how the mouse buttons are currently set up, even to implement my proposed suggestions to improve them.

[Lephys]

I'm 99.99% positive that they won't change how the mouse buttons are currently set up, even to implement my proposed suggestions to improve them.

That part makes perfect sense, but what I don't get is this part:

 

You can feel free to do that, but I will oppose anyone who mentions the idea on the forums and

Does being fairly certain the suggestion won't be fruitful warrant active opposition to the suggestion? Or is there some other reason?

[Hormalakh]

Both mouse buttons have an inbuilt command. Left click is move and select. Left click hold is marquee select. Right click is move with no select, and right click hold is formation rotate.

 

I do not think either of these should be changed at all, and that RMB should also include a cancel+move no select.

 

I can understand if people want to swap the functions of RMB and LMB over, but I don't think it will be possible (or at least very tricky) to code it so that you can split the functions without breaking 'how it works' - and breaking how it works would not be okay by me.

1- I'm sorry. Who are you again? Why do you matter exactly?

 

2- You obviously haven't messed with the predefined keys for movement/attack/formation rotation. If you had, you would realize that rotation formation is NOT inbuilt and that you can select a button for rotation formation. Currently, that button is right mouseclick. It has nothing to do with holding the mouse button or anything like that. It's set as RMB and that's it. Similarly selection is SET as the LMB and can be changed to the Right mouse button. The only issue is that while selection/movement/attack/interact can be issued the same mouse button, formation rotation has to have its own mouse button.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Hormalakh

[Sensuki]

You're wrong. I have messed with the controls because I tried to bind cancel to RMB. In v278 it broke Formation Rotate and right click move. In v301 it broke Formation Rotate, and this build it won't let me bind both keys to RMB.

If you unbind Formation Rotate from RMB, the RMB move is still there.

[Hormalakh]

Nobody is talking about cancel. Learn to read. I specifically am asking for the ability to bind multiple commands to the button where formation rotation is being bound to.

 

Everything else is what you want. And I do not care what you want.

[Sensuki]

Or you could read what I've been saying instead - the LMB already has two functions - move/select and marquee select. RMB has two functions - move/no select and Formation Rotate. Currently the move commands are built into the buttons, you can't unbind them. 

You used to be able to bind multiple functions to the same command but they removed it, because they don't interact properly. I bound cancel to RMB and it broke formation rotate. You can unbind formation rotate from RMB, but the move is still there.

How it's been implemented is no matter what you bind to LMB or RMB, both buttons will have their inbuilt move/select and move/no select. I don't think they're going to change it from that.

[Hormalakh]

Or you could read what I've been saying instead - the LMB already has two functions - move/select and marquee select. RMB has two functions - move/no select and Formation Rotate. Currently the move commands are built into the buttons, you can't unbind them.

 

You used to be able to bind multiple functions to the same command but they removed it, because they don't interact properly. I bound cancel to RMB and it broke formation rotate. You can unbind formation rotate from RMB, but the move is still there.

 

How it's been implemented is no matter what you bind to LMB or RMB, both buttons will have their inbuilt move/select and move/no select. I don't think they're going to change it from that.

Wow you're either trolling me hard or are actually this dense.

 

Do this:

Bind move/interact/select/attack to LMB (mouse0).

Unbind formation rotate completely.

Bind cancel action to RMB (mouse1).

 

There. What you want has happened.

 

Move is NOT INHERENT to the RMB. Formation rotation HAS A MOVE COMMAND inherent to it. There is nothing inherent to the mouse buttons.

 

stop wasting my time and giving out incorrect information. Supposedly you've been playing this game that long. The least you could do is verify your information before putting it out here and confusing everyone else.

 

The very issue I'm asking them to fix is to not make formation rotation have to be a separate command (even though a middle mouse button could easily take care of this problem). That is just part of the code and they can get rid of that restriction by removing that line.

 

Do you need me to draw you a picture?

Edited November 20, 2014 by Hormalakh