What were they thinking? I ask again...

[A Canadian Cat]

If there is one thing about CMBN that severely affects my ability to address the most fundamental and basic requirements of gameplay which is simply to understand WHERE units are actually locate on the map/battlefield,

<snip>

For example: That left most US icon that is overlayed on some tress. Can anyone really tell where the unit associated with that icon is?

<snip>

Lets now look at the German units. The left most icon that also is overlaying some trees. Where is the unit located?

Interesting - when I first read your post and saw your first picture with the floating icons I mentally went from icon to icon and "guessed" where the unit was. Then when I hit your questions and checked your answers I was spot on both times. Just from from the original picture. I used "guessed" in quotes because I was not guessing, I was using the icons to understand where the units were. Yes, it takes practice but you *can* get good at determining unit position from the floating icons.

The one time I don't get it right is where a unit has been spread out over a larger than normal space. This can happen for a few reasons, pathing etc. but the big one is when you have a squad performing an assault command that comes under heavy fire. They often end up spread out and have discarded their movement order. In that case the icon can be hovering over empty ground. Even then from a far away view the icon gives me enough info to know there is a squad over there in the woods. A closer look lets me see what is going on.

I just do not see a problem here. In fact I think the floating icons are working quite well.

Lets now just see what happens if we were to replace the floating icons with icons that DIDN'T float, just like the "?" don't float.

That solution has issues. Most of them were already mentioned except one. Overlapping icons? That is *not* going to work when you are actually playing the game. When units are in close quarters it is very hard to select the right unit and often those floating, stacking icons are the only way to do it. Your overlapping idea means - no selecting the unit you want. If you are frustrated now just wait until you experience that.

You are mistaken. The graphic representation of the icon could be placed "along the line between the unit-object and the camera, far enough from the unit that the foliage doesn't intervene". Which would mean that if the camera was at ground level, facing a wall 2m away, the icons would appear as if painted on the wall. Which is no more nor less useful than some icons floating in the air "somewhere beyond the wall". But would look like they're at the unit's location from the perspective of the player.

That would, indeed be suboptimal, but isn't necessary when the programmer has complete control over where on your flat (or flat-ish, if you're still CRT-bound ) viewing surface the icon will appear.

To pike your little diagram:

U= Unit, O= Obstacle, I= Icon C= Camera

U______O_I______C

But the problem with your solution of placing the icon in front of the obstacle is that by the definition of "the icon is where the unit is located" which you guys are espousing I would be under the impression that the enemy unit was right in front of me.

This would not be good.

I submit that the floating icons actually do a pretty good job of communicating where units are. The stacking feature allows me to select units when in tight spaces. I realize that some are frustrated here but I think from the discussion in this thread it is clear to me that BFC *did* consider icon placement and have chosen a good solution. Thumbs up BFC.

No bold used in my post to conserve ink:D

[sburke]

Well, I finally get a chance to get back to my PC and read the posts, and wow, where do I start?

Quite a few posts from some touchy posters who decided to take the offensive/defensive/personal/fanboi tone rather than contribute anything of value to what really is a discussion about game/UI design. You know who you are. Thanks so much for wasting space here, you have done your bit, you are no longer needed here. We can now say goodbye so feel free to just go off and find someone else's thread to pollute.

Well you set the tone as the OP and crap like that isn't helping you appear to be someone who wants a civil conversation. I did try to respond in a non defensive manner and contribute, but comments like this tell me maybe you are getting exactly what you asked for.

[Battlefront.com]

You had me up until you used the "f" word. ;-)

Ditto This is a clear sign of someone unwilling to consider that an opinion is not a fact and therefore people will disagree. As long as the counter opinions are reasoned and not abusive, then they are completely legitimate. Name calling is a weak minded response to genuine criticism.

I'll make my answer quite short.

We are not going to change the basic behavior of the floating icons. They work very well for most people most of the time. What you guys see in the game now has been played with and tested for 5 years now with hardly any complaint in years. In game design that is the mark of a successful feature because there is never 100% consensus about what a feature should or shouldn't be.

Instead of overhauling the basic functions of the icons, which would simply create new critical opinions (i.e. we'd be chasing our tails), we will instead build new features around the floating icons we already have. Better to extend the features of a functioning game element than to get into extremely unproductive rounds of scrapping and redoing the same thing every time someone doesn't like it. Because someone will always not like it.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Just to clarify...

But a vote here about what we think is important? I don't think so: Steve already stated that whatever we in the forum think is important is least likely to be what they need to do, because by the very nature of the forum, the people in it are the minority of their customers and interested in different things than the bulk of their customers. Steve said that, so there can be no illusions abot it.

While this is true (and I have said as much hundreds of times), there's a subtle distinction to make between not listening to complaints/suggestions and not being a slave to complaints/suggestions. Hundreds of good ideas and thousands of tweaks have come from these Forums and got into our CM games over the past 12 years. In fact, this Forum is our primary means of getting widespread input about what should, and shouldn't, get into the game.

The thing is we can not take the discussions here as "mandates" because, collectively, the Forum makes up a tiny percentage of our customer base on any given day. It is also true that the people who post here are disproportionally "harder core" than our average customer. Polls, voting, longest threads... whatever... it's not a good gauge for what is best for the game as a whole. Which is why we use our judgement of what to do instead of petitions, polls, etc.

Having said that, and I need to stress this, we do have a great mix of player types here. Which is why there's such a wide array of opinions about what is "good" and what is "bad". It's a great place for us to see multiple perspectives and sides of an issue. We use these discussions when appropriate. Which is why CM gets better with each release instead of worse

Steve

[slysniper]

For some the problem is the icons can be deceiving to them as to unit location, that is very true to anyone as long as one does not change the view. But for most people if you look at an icon and rotate the camera a little. Your mind will immediately understand where the unit is. But I have also come to the conclusion, some people cannot understand a 3d world on a 2d screen surface well. Even rotating the view leaves them in a fog. I would suggest you learn to go to the above view then and look straight down on the map to make the icons of any value to you, it is pretty hard to mis-interpret that. if that does not seem to fit you needs. Then turn them off and be done with it, since you cannot get the information from them that they are intended to help with.

Personally, like most things, if you try to get value out of them they are helpful. Just because they are not perfect to ones likes, does not make them garbage.

I swear, many people have lost the ability to adapt.

[c3k]

I have gills.

[sfhand]

...

If the potential already exists for the icons to tell you exactly (or certainly MUCH better than what they already do) where the unit is (something ALL players need to know at some stage), why not utilise that potential?

...

From my perspective none of your suggestions or examples are superior to the current implimentation. When I want detailed information about my unit, including the exact location of each member of the unit, I click on it's icon. That seems simple and straight forward to me.

[sburke]

I have gills.

Adapting to bridge pathing issues? I'd say that's going above and ...er ...below and beyond.

[JonS]

I have gills.

Still, or have you started climbing back down the tree of life?

[Sixxkiller]

Still, or have you started climbing back down the tree of life?

More like up. Peng would be proud!

[Michael Emrys]

I have gills.

Living in a fish tank, are you?

Michael

[Vinnart]

I've never had much problem with the icon heights in finding units since selecting it highlights the bases which shows their position just fine IMO. The hieght of the icon seems to be for practical reasons like what others have said in that it does not get lost behind the trees and such. I have been using a variation of Wolf's geometric icons which I like. The siluhettes fit into the shapes better which makes the icons smaller. My special set keeps the gray/green for contacts, and red/blue for spotted units. So in a sea of gray "?" the red ones stick out easier for example. Kind of like CMSF meets CMBN.

Lt Bull, keep your pecker hard and your powder dry, and the worm will turn.

[GerryCMBB]

Are Wolf's icons available at the Repository? And yours are not available I take it?

Thanks,

Gerry

[Vinnart]

Gerry, Wolf's icons are available at repository. I haven't uploaded the red/blue gray/green combo floating icons, but if it is something others want to check out I could put it up, or send it PM.

[GerryCMBB]

Hello Vin:

Yes I would like to try your variation if you don't mind sharing. Thanks very much. I haven't used many mods yet but it's time I started.

Gerry

[Thomm]

I still think that the original post has some merit.

I also realize that the technical reasons for making the icons float so high may still be applicable, so I do not expect change.

Lets take a look a this screenshot which I borrow from another thread:

Look at the infantry icon over the tip of the church tower! Where is this unit?

Look at the HQ icon to the left, over the transparent building! Where is the unit?

Look at the infantry icon in the center of the screenshot! Where is this unit? Ground floor? First floor?

Why is the icon over the distant tank floating higher above the tank than the one over the close tanks?

Again, I do not really have issues with the status quo, but I think that these questions remain valid.

Best regards,

Thomm

[GreenAsJade]

Nice demo of the problem!

One could say that in your picture the problem is "contrived" by focussing on units in buildings: the worst case scenario.

However, the times when I've had this problem more intensely have been in very hilly maps. The variation in actual possible unit height I think " destablises" your eyes from correctly interpretting where the unit will be based on the icon position. IE these icons are all fine in the flat desert, but as soon as elevation becomes a factor, they are more confusing...

Just a thought.

GaJ

[BletchleyGeek]

Why is the icon over the distant tank floating higher above the tank than the one over the close tanks?

Note that the apparent difference in height is more or less proportionate with the distance of the unit from the camera along the z-axis. Actually, they're actually about the same distance - just checked measuring the distance with my fingers on the screen. The problem is that the distance of the unit icon billboard to the 3d model is not being affected by the camera projection.

Lt Bull posted some screenshots of Operation Star, which is a good solution to the problem of providing people with an icon you can interact with and has a clear presentation (doesn't get confused with the image itself). Graviteam took the HUD metaphor for their game, in CMx2 we have the "miniatures with flagpoles" metaphor.

[Michael Emrys]

Look at the infantry icon over the tip of the church tower! Where is this unit?

Look at the HQ icon to the left, over the transparent building! Where is the unit?

Look at the infantry icon in the center of the screenshot! Where is this unit? Ground floor? First floor?

Again, these questions are easily answered by clicking on the icon, which lights up the base of the unit, making it easily visible. Would it be nice if the click weren't necessary? Yes it would, but this seems like a very small matter to me compared with some other GUI problems in the game. YMMV.

Michael

[Sgt Schultz]

This floating icon issue seems to be one of perception that conflicts with certain play styles, rather than a widespread flaw. The icon elevation scales with distance from the POV, stacks due to proximity to other units, and changes due to both unit and POV elevation on the map.

In RT play, this could be a real time-killer, until you find some work-arounds(mods, different view angles/elevations). Then it is just part of your muscle memory. Find an angle and distance that works and stick with it.

This behaviour is almost beneath my notice personally. I watch the movie once for casualtiy flashes from one flank or the other. This allows me to see all the icons. Then I spend a few movies at level 1 or 2. Icons are no worries there either, because they are turned OFF so I can immerse myself. 'No red cross' mod as well.

During the orders phase, I know who I want to deal with and go to them. Level 3 or so, slight downward tilt, and a few hundred meters back from the unit(s) in question is my orders POV. Every time. This means I know what icons will look like from the angles I am seeing them from. They are my men, I better know where everyone is already.

I am unsure how they can do much better than what we have with all the variables that must be accounted for. If they change one thing, then some icons may get buried in terrain or fly way up.

On a hill map icons could be hidden behind a hill.

The only quick and dirty thing that comes to me would be to scale icon size with distance from POV. While it would not solve all the perception issues, it would help.

[Vinnart]

Gerry, PM me your email and I will send you my variation of Wolfe’s geometric icons. I would load it to the repository, but it is really Wolfe’s.

Regarding this thread: The floating icons are definitely dynamic. You will notice units that are farther away have smaller icons compared to units that are closer to the camera. The height is affected by camera distance too. The closer the camera, the lower the floating icon. When the camera is at ground level and close to the unit the floating icon is right above the unit. One way one could get all the units positions would be to quickly lasso select them all, thus highlighting all their bases. Many things that can improve the situational awareness were already in CMx1, but were left out. In Cmx1 the player could TOGGLE UNIT BASES ON/OFF. This would be useful in Cmx2, and is the best solution to the gripe. Whether BF could implement remains to be seen.

In regard to situational awareness of knowing what floor the unit is on at a glance again we must look to Cmx1. This information along with “passenger” status was displayed in the GUI when the unit was selected. I have lobbied for this in other threads. I do find that many times I must move the camera to find out for sure what floor the unit is on, or if it is a passenger or just next to the vehicle especially when many units are clustered, or many are in a multifloor building. All this takes too much time in RT. When I RT I want to keep the camera around the 4 setting keeping an overview of as many forces at once, and use the LOS tool, and the GUI/ soldier stat text to read the battlefield. Antime the camera is moved away from seeing as much overview such as to find out what floor a unit is on you are giving your opponent a break in the tempo.

It is my thought that the units experience could be condensed in the box next to the wording like all the other modifiers are. This could be done a few ways. 1) With a letter system “R”=regular, “V”= Veteran ect.. flyover text could spell the full word. 2) Using the numeric system in place now +2, +1,0,-1,-2, with flyover text that says “regular’ ect.. By doing this it frees up the space that is currently being used to spell out the modifier to be used for other info I.E. unit location, or status. Here would be what floor on? or Passenger, or tanks would show “buttoned”, or “open”. Grant it this infor is a bit out of context for that panel on the GUI, but I see no other place to put the words. I would rather have that info not caring on the placement in the GUI. Another thing I would like to see are some quick color indicators for ammo level. The intergers are good in that they are precise WHEN that info is nessary, but the color bar indicators from CMSF were much quicker at a glance.

Perhaps something like this:

[GerryCMBB]

I really like the idea of indicating the floor they are on.

Gerry

[Battlefront.com]

I've only skimmed this thread here and there, but it doesn't seem like anybody figured out why the icons do not remain above the wooded terrain. Maybe someone has and I missed it, so here's my answer:

Because it would suck arse

Seriously, it would be in the way of the gameplay. When I look at the map and see a bunch of icons obscuring my guys, that is going to cause me to turn the icons OFF. Now they are completely irrelevant because they aren't being displayed at all.

Now, for those of you who want icons instead of 3D representations, then I'm sure you'll object to what I just said. However, the intent of the Floating Icons is to give you a quick way to access your units, NOT to substitute for them. If we wanted to do the latter then they would be on or just about on your unit's real position 100% of the time.

Since the icons are behaving correctly according to the intended philosophy, which it seems the vast majority of people like (I haven't seen significant complaint about floating related issues since early CM:SF days), we are going to make no changes to that aspect of Floating Icons. Some other changes, that have far more relevance and meaning to players, are in the works for a future version of CM.

Steve

[TheBlackHand]

I appreciate the OP's passion. However, his problem has never been my problem. I have no problem with the floating icons. He's gone to great lengths to demonstrate how detrimental the floating icons are (in their current state) . . . but it still seems like more of a personal issue than a game-breaker.

I don't get it. That doesn't mean he's wrong. It just means . . . I don't share his pain.

I'll bet that every one of us (even the f-words) could write a full page rant on at least one or two aspects of the game that drive us up a wall. Heck, I probably have. However, I have yet to find any one gripe that renders the game unplayable (as others have claimed) . . . or even close to unplayable. It's a great game. It has room for improvement in certain areas. Maybe this is one of them. Maybe not.

Personally, there's a dozen other things that I'd rather have the designers work on. (A line I've heard in response to my own rage posts.)

The game isn't perfect. It's not CMAK (my favorite, for sentimental reasons). It never will be. Right now, personally, I think it's as good as it gets . . . and I believe it will get better.

You should too.

Maybe Lt. Bull's post will make a difference in the future, for the better. Maybe not.

Peace and love, peace and love.

[Erwin]

I like Vinnart's visual ideas re the info display.