c3k

Another irreversible action: ACQUIRE.

He sees dead people... The tanks are treated like any other enemy unit: only friendlies with LOS or in C&C of a unit w/LOS "know" about the enemy unit and see it. This applies to enemy casualties as well. If you want to see every known enemy unit, you need to deselect your friendlies. When your UI is blank you are no longer limited to a single unit's knowledge base.

Regarding the psychology of this: Personally, if I find a poster irrational or irritating, I ignore him. I have better things to do with my time. I will, frequently, come back to a thread I've jpreviously left without comment, to re-read the OP and subsequent posts to see if I could be mistaken in my initial impression. If I can imagine a non-native English speaker, with cultural differences, being misinterpreted by the written word, perhaps using sarcasm as a device, who is angry at a game they LIKE and just let that emotion through, I will bend over backwards to assist them. Sometimes, though, they're just cretins. My time is my time. I will give up a lot of it to help someone who wants assistance. I will ignore the rude and selfish. Thus endeth my psych 101 lecture for the day.

Apology accepted. What, by the way, is meant by "just handwaving them"? It's a term I'm unfamiliar with. Regarding the two ideas, one is mostly a command and control tree, the other a tweak of how the UI is presented. ("Tweak" may be an understatement: "revamping" could be more accurate.) Looking here, http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=100750 the additional menu on the left side takes up a lot of real estate. In exchange, we see command/control relationships and a clear OOB. This makes it easier to find your units and see what their status is. It in no way improves the player's interaction with commanding the units. The UI revamp, here, http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98491 cleans up the UI. It drops, perhaps, one button push with the tab clean up. (Those who use hotkeys would see no gain.) It retains the UI, but in an improved format. The combination of space-bar and assignable hot-keys gives a LOT of flexibility to players. Hot-keys need a proficient player. I am a casual gamer. All the games I have that rely on arcane hot-key combinations soon gather dust. I am unwilling to put the investment into memorizing and staying proficient with hot-keys. I would like to see a mouse-centric control scheme which spells out your choices so memorization is not needed.

My responses embedded in bold within the quoted passage. Continuing: There is plenty of room for improvement in the current UI. Endless complaining is worthless. Or, if this is a complaint thread, I'll drop out. Complain away. If, however, this is meant for serious discussion, then trying to craft a UI which INCLUDES all the gameplay functionality presently available, is hard. My goal is to see if there are any good ideas out there. Presenting solutions is far more beneficial than griping. Presenting solutions requires a bit of thought about how to present information and choices to the player. So, let's see some solutions.

Thanks for searching for, and linking to, those threads. However, my original query stands: how would you integrate all these ideas into a newb-friendly UI? And, based on the criticisms raised, how do you make the UI intuitive? Remember, for the purpose of this exercise, all functionality has to be retained. Add whatever you'd like. The entire UI is yours to design. Go for it. I'm seriously interested in what ideas will come forth. Ken

What, in detail, would you do? Keep all the game functionality, add the desirable features everyone's listing, and integrate it into a newb-friendly system. Seriously: it's easy to rip apart the UI, it'd be more helpful to do the harder task of showing what kind of UI you desire.

Good article. Thanks for the link. Now I know why TOAW is still sitting, mostly unplayed, on my shelf. Also, now I know why I STILL remember, with a smile, the tutorial for Myth II, Soulblighter. I can still hear that dwarf cursing as he blows things up.

Deleted. Wrong thread.

Others smarter than I can correct this, but the Physx (sp?) touted by nvidia is something that has to be coded into the game. AFAIK, BF.C does not utilize this. Another thing to think about: there has just been a press release that the new 28nm process is online. That means nvidia's Kepler and amd's 7xxx series - the next generation - will be released soon. Possibly by Christmas, if not then sometime in Q1/2012. That should mean some big performance leaps, or lower prices for old-tech. Then again, there'll always be something better just around the corner.

Of course, the 2Gb of memory in the 6950 may be more beneficial with other games. Also, you may be able to unlock some shaders or even flash the 6950 up to a 6970. I'm video card agnostic (used to be a big nvidia fan, now I'm neutral - I'm running two of each). What resolution do you game at? Will you upgrade your monitor? Do you foresee playing game with a lot of textures? (That's where that 2 Gb will come into its own.) Look at the myriad of review sites. Focus on the types of games you play as well as the resolution you use. That should help you decide. (Also, power requirements, noise, heat?)

This is VERY useful. Thank you. Ken

Send me a pm in my profile. Thanks, Ken

Known issue. I forget the details. I _think_ it only occurs with specific tree types when placed 3x (the most dense setting) on certain tiles.

I think better icons would improve gameplay-ability. If I could tell at a glance which units were 2 man scout teams, or 4 man teams, or 12 man squads, that would ease the amount of clicking about I do. Additionally, if the icon could tell me WHO/WHAT the unit was, that would help. The generic manly silhouette is used for far too many different unit types. With larger battles I think only in terms of platoon objectives. The ability to "grab" all the members of a platoon and quickly plot a movement path would be great. Imagine a platoon engaged along several bocage lines. Select all, then craft a pull back and hooking manuever that would require about 10 points. Right now that is not very useful. Usually only one of the teams could benefit from the plotted path. The rest would be exposed to the enemy or ordered into impassable terrain. However, if I could ADJUST the movement points after plotting, that would save a LOT of unit selection and clicking. Ken

I would enjoy the reverse: scanning a topo map and have the editor craft a game map from it. (With flavor objects. :0 )

Please send me a savegame. My email is c3kATroadrunnerDOTcom. I'll look at it and see if I think there's a problem. Thanks, Ken

Even thought the extension will be different, the save/go will increment up one number, regardless. For example, "KenvsGaJ001" is the file just opened. If I hit "save" the default name will be "KenvsGaJ002" for the just created bts file. If, after saving, I'm ready to execute the game, and I hit "go" the default name will be "KenvsGaJ003" for the just made ema file. This could get confusing. In PBEM, once I start with, say, an odd numbered turn, "...001", for the rest of the game I should stay odd whilst my opponent stays even. My incoming and outgoing folders should show that type of pattern. If I start saving turns and NOT renaming them, then the turns will get thrown out of whack. I may send 001, then get 007 if my opponent saved 5 times. Then, based on my saves, he could get 010. Keeping the _save suffix will help avoid this confusion.

Do you have a savegame?

I agree that the arty count system is not just counter-intuitive, but just wrong. My current 105 battery shows "105mm HE...70", "105mm Smoke...10". Now, if the first ammo line showed "105mm shells...70", that would be more correct. If - and it's been far too long since I tested this and proved it to myself - IF the game counts rounds as if the top line (HE) is total and smoke can be either smoke or HE, well, it's wrong. If it's labeled "HE", well, it should only be HE. Ditto for smoke. FWIW. Ken

I cannot count the number of times I've hit the "go" button erroneously, thinking I was going from replay to command phase. Instead, I send myself from command phase to fubar phase. This is a bad interfave issue. sburke, c'mon man. Are you serious? My focus during replay is on the center of the screen. Are there little white letters up top? Sure. Oh, wait; if it's command phase, are there little white letters up top? Sure. Oh, wait; relying on reading the header is a poor interface design, isn't it? Two functions: "Exit replay phase" and "execute commands" use the same interface, a red button, in the same location. That's bad. In a perfect world, "exit replay phase" would be located anywhere other than the bottom right hand corner of the screen. It would also have a shape other than a square. Finally, it would not be colored red. Again, I cannot count how many times I've hit the "go" button erroneously. I've been around here awhile. That may be part of the problem: my muscle memory may be overriding the need to think about the button pressing. It certainly is overriding a study of whatever the little white letters up at the top of the screen say. I'd love for this to be changed. Ken

I read the quoted passage in the review, then I looked at the score, and then I saw the "pre-alpha" graphics comment. There is a major disconnect between the reviewer's self-professed ENJOYMENT of the game and the score. 73% is not a good score. All the stated imperfections are real. They are shortcomings. I'd love for them to be improved upon. That does not change the issue: the reviewer liked the game but doesn't like the controls. Nor does he like the graphics. If PCG rated all games on the same hard-hearted scale as they just rated CMBN, then PCG would be a better magazine. They don't. They aren't. They won't be.

Actually, I did read the review. (Standing at a magazine rack.) What controls are intuitive? Right clicking to build a base to manufacture soldiers? No, that's not intuitive. It is, however, an industry "standard". This is not an RTS. Why should it use RTS controls? That's just a twitch gamer pissed that his mad skillz can't be transferred to a new game. The graphics? Hmm, explosions, flames, some lighting issues (the review did correctly get the difficulty in seeing terrain undulations). Do bright purple elves with big breasts = good graphics? Seriously, LOOK at the game. There are shortcomings, but calling it an alpha? That was the jealous ranting of a jilted lover. There are many, many, many areas where CMx can be improved. Do a search under my username: that'll highlight a lot of these areas. (Do NOT use the search term "Flare". You've been warned.) PCG is not the magazine it used to be. This review was harsh. If all their reviews had to suffer under the same actinic glare of the reviewer's focus, PCG would have a chance of returning to being a serious magazine. The review, standing on its own, is slightly negative. It does highlight some of the superficial failings of CMBN. These are real. Hopefully, they'll be improved upon. It ignores the deep achievements. These, too, are real. They are the heart of the game which sets this series apart from any other game out there. Putting the review into context with all the other reviews PCG has done - I've read almost every review they've EVER published - the reveiw was unfair. The other reviews are often softballs. Bright colors, easy to play, zippy motion, gets a high score. Big-boobed elves are worth 10 points. More if their tops fall off. PCG is a rag at this point. Hence my lapsed subscription a year ago. There, that's my review of their review.

What about the damage to running gear by near misses of 60mm mortars?

Yeah, I was disappointed by that review. Of course, after having been a PCG subscriber for over a decade (wow, I'll check, but it may've been close to 20 years?), I stopped my subscription. Their entire approach has been getting more and more superficial. Eye-candy rules PC Gamer. Andy Mahood is the only one left who looks a bit deeper at the games. The magazine seems to aim for the twitch crowd. And by "twitch crowd" I mean those who rely on twitter for all the information in their lives. Attention spans measured in seconds. It has to be pretty and make them say "oooh", or they look at next shiny object in the window. PC Gamer died a long time ago. They used to be an independent powerhouse affecting game publishers. They sold out... RIP, PCG. (The rating/review is a hard-look. If they took that same stance at EVERY game they reviewed, they might regain some credibility. They don't and won't.) Shrug. Ken