Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-29T05:34:10+02:00

pip wrote:
I don't understand what is wrong with the sniper symbol being the straight line it currently has. Nomads use it for almost 2 years, and it won't change when they are officially implemented. Can the horizontal straight line be mistaken for anything else? No. Does it make sense? Yes, ... I understand why some prefer a crosshair type icon for snipers, but it is not so clear in game as it looks on the picture. Straight line is easier to read at a glance.

It's not that there's anything wrong with it - as I said, if anything it maximizes clarity and visibility. The problem is that it is ugly and lacking in any sort of style. (We want our game to look good too!) But it's not a big deal in the same way as the 'x' is, since unlike that, it is a totally unique symbol. As a UEF player, I won't be using snipers anyway.

pip wrote:
it is to be read in relation with MML which have vertical line for long range weapons with high arc (missiles hit from above). Straight line = long range with straight arc.

Oh, see, I always looked at the vertical line as representative of the missiles themselves, not their method of firing. After all, the indirect fire symbol is not any sort of line or curve to indicate trajectory.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 29 Jul 2013, 05:34

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-28T10:39:43+02:00

I don't mind the x for armored bots being replaced by a square, it's as good an idea as the x for an unused simple shape easily recognizable. Then it can be used for heavy tanks too (x for heavy tanks would be too much similar to firebeetles but square is fine).

I don't understand what is wrong with the sniper symbol being the straight line it currently has. Nomads use it for almost 2 years, and it won't change when they are officially implemented. Can the horizontal straight line be mistaken for anything else? No. Does it make sense? Yes, it is to be read in relation with MML which have vertical line for long range weapons with high arc (missiles hit from above). Straight line = long range with straight arc. I understand why some prefer a crosshair type icon for snipers, but it is not so clear in game as it looks on the picture. Straight line is easier to read at a glance.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 28 Jul 2013, 10:39

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-28T09:55:25+02:00

i also support the square and if you really think its too big the tips cqn be removed. then it'd definetly be enouh

Statistics: Posted by Golol — 28 Jul 2013, 09:55

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T22:09:48+02:00

I'd have just use the same one for brick/percy and the heavy t2 tanks, made sense to me, as both have pretty much the same role and to not inflationate the number of icons. but pip was against it because t2 heavy tanks are not "armored" like percy/brick..

Your idea conflicts with the scout symbol i guess.

The X was simple, and good to identify, so nothing seemed wrong with it. Things like "+ with circle " or the second one of the last suggestions look messy to me, with the icon touching the border so much. Would prefer more clean symbols, that dont just look like a big black blob. Just my preference, though. As long as its different i don't care too much. Square seems fine, if the X is so unacceptable.

Statistics: Posted by Zock — 27 Jul 2013, 22:09

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T21:51:35+02:00

Zock wrote:
After that, I can see no more reason to fuss, nor further room to improve.

Not the same icons for heavy/light-amphibious t2 tanks

Good point... How about for hover a shallow U shape with 3 short lines coming down, sort of like an upside down sunrise. Signifies that there is some force pushing down from the unit.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 27 Jul 2013, 21:51

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T20:50:29+02:00

After that, I can see no more reason to fuss, nor further room to improve.

Not the same icons for heavy/light-amphibious t2 tanks

Statistics: Posted by Zock — 27 Jul 2013, 20:50

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T20:39:37+02:00

People are still fighting over the army colors (seems more important than the bricks DPS or whatever , so...

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 27 Jul 2013, 20:39

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T20:37:34+02:00

I fully support the current icons. HOWEVER...

In the next change, or even better in a hotfix before people get too used to them, I would make the changes.

The Snipers should get the one in the middle in the previous post, and the Percival etc should get the one on the right.

After that, I can see no more reason to fuss, nor further room to improve.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 27 Jul 2013, 20:37

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T20:23:02+02:00

pip wrote:
I also like the one in the middle, too bad you didn't post this a few days ago ...

Sorry, I was working, and just got some free time to check out the discussion. Remember, the icon changes were only mentioned in the changelog on the 23rd, and I had a response by the 25th. You guys were just moving really fast toward the end, that's all. (I would want to wrap it up too, with GW and everything! )

I was not saying that you guys don't care about what we have to say. Like I said, if you didn't, ZeP would have made the balance discussions in a private section. I was responding to what VoR said about how more people in the thread thought one thing than another, saying it's what we have to show that matters, we can't force a change.

The current icons are fine, they're clearly visible and distinctive enough. I just think they could be a lot better. But since the patch is already done, why bother now? We can just wait until next time...

errorblankfield wrote:
For the record, I made the icons for this patch. And I did give an option very similar to the middle one when I made said icons...

I remember that icon, but I said it should be used for the sniper bots. I think that while the current line maximizes recognizability (a plain horizontal bar is pretty clear on that bot icon's shape), it lacks the style of the other icons. Not only is it ugly, but flat bars have no meaning, so it's not intuitive - you have to remember to associate it with something specific. The crosshair is more intuitive because people already associate that with targeting something - appropriate for snipers.

For armored assault bots, I agree with what VoR said about a ring to show their protected nature, but I feel like it's too easily confused with the sniper symbol if there's clutter in the middle, compare the two I posted above next to errorblankfield's crosshair icon that I think we should use for snipers.

The one on the left blends with the center one much more so than the one on the right. Since there is no other unit that uses a square like that, it is recognizable as the 'armored shell' that VoR described. It also has more player color pixels than the other designs, so it is easier to tell which player's it is and what type of unit it is.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 27 Jul 2013, 20:23

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T19:08:35+02:00

For the record, I made the icons for this patch. And I did give an option very similar to the middle one when I made said icons...

icon_bot1_artillery_rest.jpg

It's from my icon mod*, if you want to nab it and rename the file you can mod this yourself. (Or ask me for something else.)
*Shameful plug, I think we need to change more defaults to increase visibility.

In general, I can make any simple icon in like, five seconds -ask pip.

Statistics: Posted by errorblankfield — 27 Jul 2013, 19:08

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T19:03:53+02:00

Mycen wrote:
If "shut up when someone else do it" is how you feel, then why did you shoot down the balance team's request to have their own private area for discussion? Something about wanting the entire community to be able to provide input, if memory serves?

Exactly. Then, it's their right to listen or not, and you have nothing to say about it : The process is entirely transparent.

Obviously, people saying that the strat icons shouldn't be changed because it's sacred won't be listen.

Someone like you proposing something will be listen.

Actually, the icons on the current patch are done by someone that was not in the balance team.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 27 Jul 2013, 19:03

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T19:02:44+02:00

VoiceofReason wrote:
And I'm all for having the game improved; but to say when a change is made, STFU you aren't the one doing the work you have no opinion - Well, Zep with that mentality - Why, and what do you post on PA forums?

Stupid reasoning. I can't work on PA. Anyone can do some work on FAF.
Proof is : Some icons were done two posts above.

Someone proposed some icons, nobody gave better one, so we took them. Simple as that.

Statistics: Posted by Ze_PilOt — 27 Jul 2013, 19:02

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T18:51:58+02:00

I also like the one in the middle, too bad you didn't post this a few days ago ...

Also, it's not true that we don't listen to the community, we do. What I meant is that the choices were not in the hands of the community, that was the point of the balance team in the first place. The community gives advices, the team makes choices. It doesn't mean the advices of the community have no value or impact on the choices made.

Statistics: Posted by pip — 27 Jul 2013, 18:51

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T18:45:18+02:00

Ze_PilOt wrote:
You seem to know better, I wonder why you did not applied .. You would be able to do whatever you want with icons or whatever.
http://www.faforever.com/?p=925

Tip of the day : If you are not willing to do something, shut up when some else do it.

I did not apply because one of the clearly stated conditions was that one of the team members must know how to code. I do not, nor do I know anyone that does. Also, the primary focus of the patch (Aeon T2) is not something I was interested in, so it really would not make sense for me to try and take on responsibility for a great many things that I would have no input about. Obviously I wouldn't try to make my own balance team just to provide input on a handful of small changes. I can't code in anything I might want, but I can draw an icon myself.

If "shut up when someone else do it" is how you feel, then why did you shoot down the balance team's request to have their own private area for discussion? Something about wanting the entire community to be able to provide input, if memory serves?

Ze_PilOt wrote:
You can propose them next time.

I will wait until next time, the patching period is over now. The icon changes were tossed in right towards the end of the patch, so by the time I noticed the issue and thought of something, it was too late. So oh well, it really doesn't matter that much. But I might as well discuss them now while it's on people's minds, so I know what to think for later. It shouldn't matter if we bounce around ideas, right? That stupid Novax thread went on for ten pages, after all...

VoiceofReason wrote:
I really like the one in the middle. It's completely unique and on first glimpse denotes a "HEAVY" unit.

Oh, I actually didn't like the one in the middle as much as the one on the right. I feel like it's too full, almost all of the player color is outside the symbol.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 27 Jul 2013, 18:45

Re: Strategic Icons

2013-07-27T18:42:20+02:00

Mycen wrote:
VoiceofReason wrote:Third; An alternative has been posted (circle around)... or alter the outside shape/appearance in some other way(make the outer line BOLD?)

Fourth; In the balance patch thread there was 1 who liked it, and one who agreed with me. That's 2against, 1 for.
BetterIdea: Put it back the way it has been for years? Again, I've yet to note the complaint they cant tell their bricks apart from the loyalist....And now 'TWO at least' who disagree with the current setup.

Remember, the patchers aren't interested in what the community thinks, they're interested in what they think will improve the game. Talking about whether or not people like it isn't going to accomplish anything, only presenting them with alternatives that they might like more. With that in mind...

pip wrote:
The mobile bombs and the armored bots have different shapes, different tiers, and different symbols. I don't see how you can be confused after a couple games.

I do agree with VoR that the "X" icon is not ideal. It's not that people may or may not confuse Bricks for Beetles, it is that 'x's denote self-destruct units, which the armored assault bots are not. I personally thought something like this would be more appropriate:

The one on the right, with the square. It seems easy enough to differentiate, and is not used by anything else. Thoughts?

I really like the one in the middle. It's completely unique and on first glimpse denotes a "HEAVY" unit.
Also, I'd like to point out I'm not the Idea maker - more the idea breaker; And through this process we've dragged out someone WITH ideas because they recognized the same issues I have.

And I'm all for having the game improved; but to say when a change is made, STFU you aren't the one doing the work you have no opinion - Well, Zep with that mentality - Why, and what do you post on PA forums?

Statistics: Posted by VoiceofReason — 27 Jul 2013, 18:42