Suggestions to improve the UI

[PeterLorre86]

What was nice about the right click menu in CM1 was you could use it as a tool to learn the hotkeys, as the key is displayed next to the order. With higher resolutions i don't think it would be too big, probably about the same size as the CM1 drop menu was with its lower resolutions. And you could always use sub-menus if it was too big.

The Homeworld series is an example of a very intuitive UI with a mouse menu that also used sub-menus. I would say CM1 is another example, although once i learned the hotkeys i rarely used it.

The UI in CM:SF is clunky and confused in my opinion. It is the reason i rarely play CM:SF. Non-adjustable waypoints is annoying, its nice to hear that some people find this step backwards tolerable but for me i cant ignore it. It's also nice that show all lines/targets is finally in, can we get that without having to have a unit selected? (To clarify, as this sounds sarcastic rereading it, i mean this in the literal sense as it is written)

Another solution or improvement would be maybe having it so just clicking on the ground while a unit is selected issues the basic move order, and clicking on an enemy would issue the target command. That way basic commands can be issued and playing in real-time with out pausing ever 10 seconds can be done. Not sure how do-able this would be though, or if it would even turn out well. It would certainly reduce some of the tactics, strategy, or realism that keeps this game from falling out of the war-game genre.

The points by c3k and others about 2 function processes are important, as in my experience it seems like to get anything done in the game it takes twice as many mouse clicks then i would expect. This is a major turn off as far as my wanting to play the game.

Change the hotkeys you say? Thats a work-around. If thats to be the final solution the game should have an in-game options area for changing this.

Learn the hotkeys you say? / is reverse, / is bail out. / is also on the other side of my keyboard from many of the other controls, so i have to look down to find it. The tabbed system adds unnecessary confusion. If your going to use a system like that, it needs to be apparent what tab you are currently in. Yea it's in the bottom of the screen, but if im gonna be staring at that every 5 seconds i might as well be staring a a right click menu that shows all the commands at once.

I want to like this game, i really do. CM1 was so great, i think what frustrates me the most is seeing great features from that game replaced by different and less functional versions in this game. Then the creator of the game comes and tells me that i am in fact wrong, CM1 was actually a terrible game and no one liked it. Maybe i just have to get used to it, but its been 7 or 8 months already since i got the game, i would think that would have happened by now. It's frustrating all around.

Well thats my 2 cents on the issue anyway.

[M1A1TC]

Nicely put, and pretty much how I feel as well

I think we all want to enjoy CMSF, but its so hard to enjoy decent gameplay with a badly designed UI.

I usually attempt to play a scenario about once a week, but I usually cant finish all way through because I feel like I am at work

[Battlefront.com]

The funny thing is I'm being accused of not listening and ignoring the other side of the argument The UI is not badly designed, it is not less efficient than CMx1, and it is absolutely not confusing to use. It's EXTREMELY simple, however it requires one tiny thing for people to do:

Use it correctly

Now, if you don't want to, then yeah... it sucks. But ask a half dozen people why it sucks and what they would prefer and you'll get about 3 dozen different opinions, some of which are extremely contradictory. That's the point I made two pages ago with M1A1TankCommander's quotes of reviewers. Some even LIKE the way it is, which should register with those who are being critical.

Here's what I mean, using PeterLorre86's recent post:

Change the hotkeys you say? Thats a work-around.

By this definition every single game that has modifiable hotkeys has horrid UI. I for one have never, ever played a game that I haven't modified the default hotkeys. Somehow I find the ability to customize the hotkeys to be a great feature, not a liability. In fact, CMx1 fans and critics alike wanted modifiable keys.

If thats to be the final solution the game should have an in-game options area for changing this.

I agree an ingame solution would be optimal. But c'mon... is it REALLY going to kill you to make changes to a text file ONE TIME and then play with those settings, perhaps making a small tweak here or there, over the course of the game's lifetime on your harddrive? I'm sorry, but I find this to be an extreme and unreasonable perspective. Kinda like someone being in the desert complaining of thirst, then not drinking a glass of water in front of him because he'd rather someone put it to his lips for him.

That might sound harsh, but at some point a user has to take responsibility for his own enjoyment. If the tool is there to get what you want out of it, and is reasonable to use, then why not use it? It would take you less time to modify that TXT file than to have typed up your criticism of it

Learn the hotkeys you say? / is reverse, / is bail out. / is also on the other side of my keyboard from many of the other controls, so i have to look down to find it.

Why? I don't. Have 9 keys assigned to the relative positions and then some keys (of your choice) to toggle the different types of Commands. I never, ever look at my keyboard when I issue Commands because that is exactly what the UI was designed to avoid. I keep my eye on the screen.

The tabbed system adds unnecessary confusion.

Two reasons for this. One, trying to show 36 possible Commands on the main screen, all the time, isn't going to happen. Therefore they are tabbed to make the display practical BUT there is another reason.

You are allowed to combine Commands on a Waypoint, something you can't do in CMx1 and people definitely wanted. So breaking them up by category tells you, very clearly, which ones you can mix and which ones you can't since you can do one of each (not Admin) per Waypoint.

Look guys... you can EASILY convince me that the UI doesn't work the way you personally want it to. I got that message loud and clear 6 months ago. What you can not convince me is that I'm playing CM:SF less efficiently than CMx1, that it's impossible to play RT, it's not possible to enjoy the game experience, and so on and so on because the UI is inherently fubar. For YOU it might be, but it's exactly the opposite for myself and others. Hell, even if we are the minority the fact still remains that an absolute position like "the UI doesn't work" is demonstrably false.

Arguing that your OWN PERSONAL OPINION overrides everybody else's is not only arrogant but it is counter productive. There is room for improvement in all UIs of all games ever made. There is always controversy over various components of a UI inherent in all games all the time from the beginning of time. Accept it and let's move on and figure out what we can put in to give you another way to use the game. Just remember that your personal idea of a perfect UI is probably going to be criticized by someone else because there is never consensus.

Steve

[ January 26, 2008, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

PeterLorre86,

I wanted to address this separately:

I want to like this game, i really do. CM1 was so great, i think what frustrates me the most is seeing great features from that game replaced by different and less functional versions in this game.

To you, but not to me or other players. The new UI is vastly superior to CMx1. I think the way you want to play the game is inefficient, ineffective, and extremely tedious. You think the opposite. We can't both be factually correct, therefore we must both be expressing opinions.

Then the creator of the game comes and tells me that i am in fact wrong, CM1 was actually a terrible game and no one liked it.

Never said that. CMx1 was an awesome game series, but it wasn't perfect. There are several hundred thousand posts for each CMx1 game and I'd guess that probably a good 1/2 of them are complaining about some aspect of the game or another. The UI was roundly criticized by game reviewers and game players alike. Putting on rose colored glasses and remembering the CMx1 UI as if it were some worthy tribute to the gods is just silly. Unfortunately, that is the attitude I saw a lot of early on and still see from time to time. So I have to remind people of the truth:

CMx1 was an imperfect game system and just about everybody who played it felt it could be improved, most felt it should be improved. Some felt CMBB was a step backwards, others felt CMAK wasn't worth buying because it didn't change the system much. Even more felt the game sucked so badly that they would never play it beyond the demo (some not even that)

That's reality and I challenge anybody who doubts me to go spend a few hours sifting back through the CMx1 posts, especially around the times when the games launched. The irony is I'm often accused of not listening to gamer feedback. I think the opposite is more likely true... perhaps I listened too much. Maybe I should have figured that all the bitching, complaining, and wishing for something better was all a big put on and that what people really wanted was for nothing to change. Customers are a rather confusing and contradictory lot, so it is indeed possible

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

To try and get this back into focus, here are two opinions from the previous page. I do not disagree with either one, even though they contradict each other:

C'Rogers,

The 3x3 grid system for the hotkeys is, in my opinion, very innovative. I really wish someone had come up with something like it earlier (maybe they did, kudos to battlefront if they did). Now I say that even though I don't use it but I think I see where they are going.

Hotkeys and menu have one key weakness, the more orders the more clunky it becomes. The grid menu decreases this the clunkiness factor significantly. If you were to be proficient at this method, and because it is new none of us are, it would not be difficult to have probably upwards of fifty commands easily accessible.

wunwinglow

OK, I'm not making much effort with the key commands, I will freely admit that. But you did ask for comments on the interface. And I still think the current situation is messier than CMAK et al. So as far as I am concerned, things were changed for the worse. I prefer the old system. It works better, for me. The new one gets in the way, and I end up getting frustrated 'cos I can't issue commands accurately and quickly

Then we get useless tripe like this from GSX:

The UI of SF could have been designed by someone who has never played a PC game before, let alone a wargame.

Yeah, but it wasn't. It was designed by the same people that made CMx1 and have been playing wargames since before there were computers. Us. So either we got completely daft over a critical game component or we overrated people's ability to try something new and slick instead of something old and clunky.

Guys, it is really this simple... we made a new UI that is tailored to a new game engine. Some of you want the old UI that was tailored for the old game engine to be used instead. This doesn't make us right and you wrong, nor does it make us wrong and you right. I can accept that a fair number of you find it inferior while I find it superior, so why is it so difficult for some of you to accept that you may find it inferior while others find it superior? I get accused of being an arrogant and stubborn cuss sometimes, but really... I'm a junior under achiever compared to some of you

Bottom line is we will add in more CMx1 UI features as we go along, but it will sit in addition to the features that already exist. That way we might make about 60% of you all happy. With UI design I think that's about as good as it can get

Steve

[Pandur]

a thing not even the glorious CMx1 had and CMx2 follows its path. what about browsing the battles, files in the editor, etc... with the mouse wheel!? i really missed that in CMx1 as the list can get verry verry long and in the window you also just see 10-15 battles or so.

that combined makes it a bit cumbersom.

this area could have needed "some" more attention i feel. its no big thing but if one could "browse" such lists more fluid it would relive a bit the undwieldily touch to the game.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, handling long file lists is something we need to improve.

Steve

[Other Means]

I'd like to be able to see my PBEM games and have a password entered on the menu screen rather than typing it in each time.

Does that make me the laziest man on Earth?

[hoolaman]

If we're talking UI I think the editor needs a bit of work too.

Depending on the formation it seems you have to select a whole battalion and delete what you don't want. It would be better to select only the unit you click on and whatever HQs are neccesary. A bottom up approach instead of a top down approach.

As it is you notice the Syrian formations are much less painless because they do not have such a strict chain of command and often selecting the unit you want does not include a whole battalion, allowing selection of single companies without deleting everything.

Also the unit menu highlight selector bar in the editor is very dark against the dark background. A lighter highlight would be better.

[Andro]

The whole ingame Menu needs work.

There is no sound fader for example, assign hotkey by txt file? C´mon, that was 10 years ago. Why not Ingame like in every other game? Then you can copy the txt, too.

[wunwinglow]

So I'm an arrogant cuss, am I? Fine. I just deleted CM:SF from my PC. So you can add petulant pillock to that list as well....

Tim

[ January 27, 2008, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: wunwinglow ]

[PeterLorre86]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Post your suggestions, ideas or opinions here on what would improve the CMSF user interface.

It was in the spirit of that statement by the topic starter that i posted my opinion of the UI system in CMSF, i was not trying to be "arrogant" nor "counter productive". I was careful to use the lines "in my opinion" and ended my post with "well thats my two cents on the issue". I also never said Battlefront was "not listening" or "ignoring the other side of the argument", but I'm not sure that was directed at me specifically.

What i meant by saying changing hotkeys was a work around was not really that i dislike changing hotkeys or that all games that allow you to change hotkeys have horrid UI, in fact i never said CMSF had 'horrid' UI. The hotkeys are only part of what makes the UI clunky or confused IN MY OPINION. Also, changing the keys by text file would probably not kill ME. It might kill others (or kill their experience with CMSF at least) however, perhaps those who do not bother to sign up to or read the forum, or perhaps those who missed the few threads about changing hotkeys with the text file. I am not saying you cannot improve the UI by changing hotkeys. I am saying that the unmodified UI is less then ideal, to the point of it having a negative effect on the gameplay.

To my suggestion of a 'show all right click menu' you say:

Originally posted by Battlefront: Two reasons for this. One, trying to show 36 possible Commands on the main screen, all the time, isn't going to happen.

I agree, 36 commands, that would take up a lot of space. I went in game just now, and depending on which unit i selected i had from 15 to 22 available commands. I don't think it would be impossible to show all of these in a right click menu. It was a random selection of both red and blue, infantry and vehicles, squads and weapons teams. I am not sure there is a unit that uses all 36 commands at once. In CM1, German tanks could not use Human Wave, Russian SMG squads could not button up. Can anyone tell me how many commands the right click menu in CM1 showed? Vista wont let me check for myself...

Your second reason was

Originally posted by Battlefront: So breaking them up by category tells you, very clearly, which ones you can mix and which ones you can't since you can do one of each (not Admin) per Waypoint.

This is a great feature btw, to allow different orders per waypoint. But to solve this with a right click menu, which shows all the commands at once, could be done most simply with color coding.

But anyway, i(we?) am(are?) falling into the pattern you point out of arguing one's opinion. I have stated my opinion, you tell me why it doesn't work, and i feel obligated to defend or clarify why in my mind it does in fact work. So maybe we are running in circles at this point, you acknowledge that the UI needs work, and I must accept that it probably wont end up the way I personally would like it.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

PeterLorre86,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Then the creator of the game comes and tells me that i am in fact wrong, CM1 was actually a terrible game and no one liked it.

Never said that. </font>

[GSX]

Originally posted by Melnibone:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GSX:

The UI of SF could have been designed by someone who has never played a PC game before, let alone a wargame.

Constructive as ever. </font>

[c3k]

Following is a redacted quote about the current UI from upstream:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It's EXTREMELY simple, however it requires one tiny thing for people to do:

Use it correctly

Steve

According to this, "I don't get it" if I'm not using hotkeys. Yet, the game include the mouse and tab interface.

What I am saying (and others) is that we play this game and support BF.C DESPITE the interface. We're asking for a better interface option. If hotkeys work for you, good for you. I prefer mouse controls.

You ask, then just adapt. Well, I would NEVER buy a flight sim that didn't let me use a control stick. That's a game purchasing decision based on UI. I could make many other examples.

The current CMSF control scheme has generated a lot of feedback.

How much of that feedback has been positive?

I don't think a right-click menu would need every single command. It should cover Move and Combat. Other commands can be accessed by the tabs. Again, how often is "Acquire" used? Yet, it has THE SAME LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE as any move or combat item: Tab, select.

With very few exceptions no-one here is threatening to leave, or denigrating the accomplishment which is CMSF. It is a measure of our support for BF.C, and by extension a measure of BF.C's reputation, that we are trying to bring to light alternatives to improve the game.

How many alternatives are there? That's a silly question. Steve, you say that everyone has a differing opinion of what to do. That's a specious form of debate. Everyone is UNIFIED in telling you that the UI is driving them away from playing this game. Until a new alternative is shown, everyone will continue to make suggestions. That does not take away from the salient point; the UI could be vastly improved.

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Andro,

There is no sound fader for example, assign hotkey by txt file? C´mon, that was 10 years ago. Why not Ingame like in every other game?

Simply a time issue. As I just said in another thread:

"In theory I don't see a problem with getting this feature in on its own. The issue, as always, is if it is important enough to trump other game improvements. For example, would people rather an enhanced simulated civilian feature or improvements to QBs? I'm not saying that's the choice, I'm just reminding you guys that every hour spent of Feature X means an hour not available for Feature Y. If we didn't have about 10 years worth of suggested feature enhancements queued up this wouldn't be a problem, but it is since we do "

Every single individual user request, which is within our technical means to achieve, has to be considered in the context of all the other requests. Currently you, the player, have an easy way to change the Hotkeys. There are other things in the game that are not within the player's ability to influence, but players want influence. It is therefore better for everybody for us to focus on functionality that does not exist rather than to make existing functionality prettier.

PeterLorre86,

I'm not questioning your motivations for what you posted, just emphasizing the point that just because someone doesn't like something it doesn't make it inherently bad. People, in general, tend to forget things like this so I have to remind them it isn't as cut and dried as they would like it to be.

I am saying that the unmodified UI is less then ideal, to the point of it having a negative effect on the gameplay.

I mentioned this somewhere before... the problem with making any UI for a game like Combat Mission is that there is NO ONE RIGHT WAY to do it. Some people have voiced strong desire to see CM:SF use standard FPS conventions. Well, that's what the default key layout does. In my opinion it is suboptimal so the first thing I do when reinstalling (as a tester I have to do this occasionally) I redo my Hotkeys. Problem solved in a few seconds.

Now, would it have been better to ship with different defaults? In your opinion yes, but I can guarantee you that someone else would make a nearly identically written post about how we've screwed up the default keys. They are simply too personal to get right for everybody, or even a large portion of people. That's why they are customizable.

I agree, 36 commands, that would take up a lot of space. I went in game just now, and depending on which unit i selected i had from 15 to 22 available commands. I don't think it would be impossible to show all of these in a right click menu.

Right, but we were discussing the need for a tab styled interface for people that want to play with hotkeys as their primary means of entering Commands. Right-click menus in CMx1 had about the same number of "Orders" on average so there isn't a need to make a case for it being possible.

This is a great feature btw, to allow different orders per waypoint. But to solve this with a right click menu, which shows all the commands at once, could be done most simply with color coding.

Same answer as above.

But anyway, i(we?) am(are?) falling into the pattern you point out of arguing one's opinion. I have stated my opinion, you tell me why it doesn't work, and i feel obligated to defend or clarify why in my mind it does in fact work. So maybe we are running in circles at this point, you acknowledge that the UI needs work, and I must accept that it probably wont end up the way I personally would like it.

Then again, it might get most of the way there. And perhaps sooner than you think What you're seeing in my argumentation is that it is wrong, and I mean wrong, to presume that "I don't like it" is inherently, and absolutely unquestionably, equal to "it sucks". This is the problem with GSX's attitude, which I'll get to again in a sec

Your right, you never did say that. But, for what it is worth, that is the feeling i get when you make statements like: the UI in CMSF is (in your opinion)"100 times better than CMx1's UI."

Just as you have the right to say "I don't like it" and explain why, I have the right to say "I do like it" and explain why. It has to be a two way street otherwise only one side is listening. It should be clear to most neutral observers that I'm listening and others are not. Which almost gets me to GSX again, but I have to hit your last thoughts.

That's true, but what is also true is that the imperfections of the game system where markedly less apparent then the imperfections in CMSF's game system.

It is all about individual perspective and the feature in question, obviously. One thing is certain, though... the overwhelming majority of people that heard of CM didn't play the demo. The majority that played the demo didn't like what they saw at all. The few (percentage wise) who did complained about a great many things being imperfect, and I'm sure many of them stopped playing the game within a week of getting it. I also know that a huge percentage of people who bought CMBO did not buy CMBB, and then a lot more stayed away from CMAK after. So when someone thinks we didn't need to shake things up and try something new, I say the evidence is that if we hadn't we'd be out of business by now.

Having said that, I'm not saying we got everything we needed to right. We certainly didn't, but we see the things that need to be fixed as being fairly minor in the grand scope of things. If we had produced CMx1 with better graphics I am sure that I'd already be looking for a new job. So one can disagree with the changes we made, but I reject any notion that change (and even radical change) wasn't necessary.

I wouldn't say you listen too much, or too little for that matter. I find the developer's level of involvement and willingness to engage in discussion here a welcome and fairly unique feature to this software company. I think the problem maybe lies in the way you deal with people, engaging them so directly encourages us to think that we may have more impact on the implementation of the game features then we really do. And then when our expectations are not met, we feel doubly let down. I say this with some reservation however, as i really do enjoy the debates between developer and customer and hope they will continue. I think also it benefits the developer, as he is able to gain insights into the various opinions of the gamer in a more accurate way then say, sales levels, would reflect.

Agree completely. As rocky as the discussions can be at times, no discussions at all are not to anybody's advantage. The products we make sometimes become better because of customer feedback, sometimes better despite it. We can't choose ahead of time what feedback people will give, so it has to be open to all. Even GSX, which I will now get to

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

BF has a reputation of quality. CMx1 was simple, but could be complicated. one of the things that made the learning curve was the ability to play it with the mouse, the people who made SF are the very ones that made CM. Go figure eh?

Yeah, go figure! We obviously underestimated your intelligence. Sorry about that, it won't happen again

Also, who playtested this thing?????

Did anyone playtest it who had never played CMx1? Did anyone playtest it who had only played RT games?

Nobody playtested CM:SF. We had a monitor on in front of a bunch of lab rats and took notes to see if any died during the experience. Since none did, we figured everything was fine and we figured it was perfect.

Sorry, I dont really mean to come off as negative,

Yet you do

I just dont understand a lot of things to do with this game amd none of the reasons behind the decisions evr seem to be explained, except the attitude I get that Cmx1 = bad and SF=good and no matter what anyone says to the contrary anyone who doubts this is branded as just not getting it.

No, that's just the way you wish to perceive it. The way I perceive it is people come into discussions like this with a bad attitude and a big chip on their shoulder. Until that chip is knocked off there can't be a meaningful discussion. The most common chip is "CMx1 was perfect and you screwed it all up". Since it's a big lie that chip needs to come off first before I can take anything that person says seriously. Or if they refuse to let it go, then I know I'm dealing with someone who values his own opinions too highly and therefore is probably someone I can't please no matter what since I can't tailor a game to any one individual person.

At the end of the days I suppose the sales figures will be the bottom line here.

They always are. Which is why I need to keep harping on the fact that CMx1 was a dead end and radical change was needed. I'm not saying that we got everything right with CM:SF, or even the underlying CMx2 engine, however we got far more right than wrong. All we need to do is change a few things here and there and I think the majority of critics today will change their tune tomorrow. But donning the thick rose colored glasses and wielding CMx1 as if it is a holy book is going to do nothing productive.

As I've said, the CMx2 UI was tailor made for the CMx2 game engine. That's why it doesn't look like CMx1 or any other game. CMx2 shares common features with wargames, RTS, and FPS games. Therefore, any one UI from any one particular game will FAIL in CMx2. It has to be a novel mixture of various elements, therefore we all need to figure out how to get those elements together so the bulk of people can be at least moderately happy with the UI. There will never be full agreement on UI features, and that is about as humbling a position one can find himself in. It would be good for the players to be in this mindset as much as us otherwise compromise will be impossible to find.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

According to this, "I don't get it" if I'm not using hotkeys. Yet, the game include the mouse and tab interface.

What I am saying (and others) is that we play this game and support BF.C DESPITE the interface. We're asking for a better interface option.

You've asked and you've been heard loud and clear for months. Your wait is nearly over for some of your requests, others will come in time, and still others will never come because we can't always put in what people ask for.

If hotkeys work for you, good for you. I prefer mouse controls.

I don't have a problem with this. What I have a problem with is people saying "I prefer mouse controls, and so should everybody else since the game obviously sucks without it". In other words, an acknowledgment that there is more than one way to approach the UI shows a degree of open mindedness and reasonability. Those are the people I need to be talking with, not the ones that say "the game sucks ass and you suck, therefore if you don't fix it I'll just keep telling everybody you suck". You might both wind up getting what you want, but I will tell you that it's only by coincidence

That's a specious form of debate. Everyone is UNIFIED in telling you that the UI is driving them away from playing this game.

No, that's a specious form of debate A lot of people are unified in telling us that they don't like the UI as it is, but it certainly isn't "everyone". They also would likely disagree about how to achieve the "ideal" UI if asked. It's like Iraq... pretty much everybody hated Saddam, but it turns out that's about as deep as the agreement went.

As I've said, stating that "everybody" thinks the UI sucks is demonstrably false. Even if you discount me there are people in this very thread that have taken a position that the UI is basically good. There are quotes from reviewers that also contest this assertion. It is true, however, that "everbody" who doesn't like the current UI wants it changed. That's a big difference.

Keep in mind that people who tend to like something are far less likely to voice support, while people who don't like something are usually far more vocal about their views. It is VERY important that people understand that or we get a bunch of arrogant "do it my way or the highway" people spouting off. I'm not saying we should ignore this particular bunch like we did the Steel Panthers and CC guys that were ridiculing us for going 3D, just pointing out that being loud and hot under the collar doesn't impress us in a favorable way.

Until a new alternative is shown, everyone will continue to make suggestions. That does not take away from the salient point; the UI could be vastly improved.

Yup, for some people it certainly can be. Therefore it will be. But the same is true for any game, to some extent, so it must be kept in mind that the UI will never, ever, in a million years be what everybody wants. Which is why I feel it is important to knock chips off of shoulders and kick the high horse people are riding in on in the ass to show how easily they fall off of it. I'm humble enough to know and acknowledge that the UI needs to be improved for some people, so it would be nice to see those same people have a more reasonable and supportable position than they often show.

Steve

[ January 27, 2008, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[M1A1TC]

Steve

Can you please comment on mine and other's specific suggestions and which ones you like/hate, which ones you think might make it in.

[Battlefront.com]

I already answered that... we don't have a specific list at the moment. I can say that some things will be in v1.06, and that I do know about, but it's probably better for you guys to see it yourself instead of having multi-page discussions that are 99% speculation on the customer's part. Other things not found in v1.06 will make it into future releases, but again... we don't have anything specific in mind. Things that aren't even up for consideration I try to identify right away.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

This is what you said

"Many of the suggestions listed above will find their way into the game over time"

I guess can you be more specific on which ideas are and which are not on your list at all (not considered)?

Here are some

1. Some type of battle feedback

2. Adjustable waypoints

3. Context sensitive mouse-related squad positioning (a la Full Spectrum Warrior, Company of Heroes)

4. Smoother scrolling

5. Ability to quave (SP?) orders (a la Total Annihilation, Supreme Commander)

Faster panning/scrolling when the mouse is closer to the edge of the screen.

Rotate camera 45 degrees buttons.

- Some more quicktipps (e.g. "special equipment" and ammo display (the graphical one of course))

- Possibility to scroll through certain UI elements with mousewheel (e.g. for "unit purchase" list in editor mode or "status/formation" windows ingame)

- Built-in key assignment configurator

1.Clickable Order of battle... needed urgently.

2.Big RED button that does nothing during realtime play should be the 'pause' button... should be easy to implement.

3.Ammo usage... tell squad to use at4, etc.

4.Hold fire... a basic command every soldier should know.

1. Adjustable waypoints

2. Tool tips

3. Right-click that REALLY drops the selected unit

4. Single left-click and hold to draw a box (frequently used).

5. Order of Battle

6. A setup phase WHICH IS A SETUP PHASE NOT THE FIRST TURN!!!! (See my previous thread on this.)

7. The ability to set how long the battle will be.

8. QB's with direct force selection

9. Finally, the ability to create your own menu of commands, organized as you'd like. Right-click on a unit and get the whole drop-down menu. Better yet, have a quickpick list of the most commonly used orders right there on the first right-click, so I don't have to make a second or third or fourth action to perform the most common actions. (Allow ME to set the orders I deem to be quickpicks

and many others by other players

[ January 27, 2008, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TankCommander ]

[GSX]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

GSX,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BF has a reputation of quality. CMx1 was simple, but could be complicated. one of the things that made the learning curve was the ability to play it with the mouse, the people who made SF are the very ones that made CM. Go figure eh?

Yeah, go figure! We obviously underestimated your intelligence. Sorry about that, it won't happen again

Also, who playtested this thing?????

Did anyone playtest it who had never played CMx1? Did anyone playtest it who had only played RT games?

Nobody playtested CM:SF. We had a monitor on in front of a bunch of lab rats and took notes to see if any died during the experience. Since none did, we figured everything was fine and we figured it was perfect.

Sorry, I dont really mean to come off as negative,

Yet you do

I just dont understand a lot of things to do with this game amd none of the reasons behind the decisions evr seem to be explained, except the attitude I get that Cmx1 = bad and SF=good and no matter what anyone says to the contrary anyone who doubts this is branded as just not getting it.

No, that's just the way you wish to perceive it. The way I perceive it is people come into discussions like this with a bad attitude and a big chip on their shoulder. Until that chip is knocked off there can't be a meaningful discussion. The most common chip is "CMx1 was perfect and you screwed it all up". Since it's a big lie that chip needs to come off first before I can take anything that person says seriously. Or if they refuse to let it go, then I know I'm dealing with someone who values his own opinions too highly and therefore is probably someone I can't please no matter what since I can't tailor a game to any one individual person.

At the end of the days I suppose the sales figures will be the bottom line here.

They always are. Which is why I need to keep harping on the fact that CMx1 was a dead end and radical change was needed. I'm not saying that we got everything right with CM:SF, or even the underlying CMx2 engine, however we got far more right than wrong. All we need to do is change a few things here and there and I think the majority of critics today will change their tune tomorrow. But donning the thick rose colored glasses and wielding CMx1 as if it is a holy book is going to do nothing productive.

As I've said, the CMx2 UI was tailor made for the CMx2 game engine. That's why it doesn't look like CMx1 or any other game. CMx2 shares common features with wargames, RTS, and FPS games. Therefore, any one UI from any one particular game will FAIL in CMx2. It has to be a novel mixture of various elements, therefore we all need to figure out how to get those elements together so the bulk of people can be at least moderately happy with the UI. There will never be full agreement on UI features, and that is about as humbling a position one can find himself in. It would be good for the players to be in this mindset as much as us otherwise compromise will be impossible to find.

Steve </font>

[c3k]

Steve,

Thanks for the response. I'm glad to hear that you guys are looking at some sort of change/improvement to the UI.

As for my statement of "everyone", I did not mean that literally. What do I know what 5 billion people think? I meant it to mean "everyone who has written in this thread to complain about the current UI".

Thanks,

Ken

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The funny thing is I'm being accused of not listening and ignoring the other side of the argument The UI is not badly designed, it is not less efficient than CMx1, and it is absolutely not confusing to use. It's EXTREMELY simple, however it requires one tiny thing for people to do:

Use it correctly

[...]

Accept it and let's move on and figure out what we can put in to give you another way to use the game. Just remember that your personal idea of a perfect UI is probably going to be criticized by someone else because there is never consensus.

Steve

So was the original documentation badly designed, or the mousepad with the flawed information? Given that the design of the controls is not the issue one of those choices must then be correct, no?

Look, I agree that now since you can map the keys, (even though it makes the mousepad nearly worthless), it's a workable arrangement, but you do recall that the keys were initially not mapped as per the manual? ...and that then they were changed / re-mapped in a patch. ...and that another later patch re-mapped or wrote over them again. Right?

It's nice that if the customer wants to take the time and make the effort they can change the keys, especially since the mapping to letters made little sense out of the box, but I still don't quite understand why move away from the way it worked for years with the previous product. Seems more like an unnecessary change for no logical reason than a change for improvement. Why make the customer work for it?

[Battlefront.com]

M1A1TC,

I guess can you be more specific on which ideas are and which are not on your list at all (not considered)?

As I have said before, no I can not. We have thousands of things competing for our attention and just because it is, or even if it isn't, on a list doesn't mean it will, or will not, get into the game. And if I say today "yes, we are considering it" the next question will be "when"? And then you, or someone else, will pester me for an answer to that question

Most of the things on your list are likely to go in. That should be good enough. But answering on a line by line basis isn't something I'm going to do, especially when some things are so vague or unknown that I can't comment on them at all. Like this one:

"Smoother scrolling"

I don't even know what that means, much less if we can do anything about it

Having said that, I did say I'd confirm things that I've already felt comfortable saying will get in and which things aren't ever going to happen (as far as I can tell). So the things that I've already publicly said will be rolled into CMx2 over the near term:

- Adjustable waypoints

- Some more quicktipps (e.g. "special equipment" and ammo display (the graphical one of course))

- Clickable Order of battle... needed urgently.

- Ammo usage... tell squad to use at4, etc.

- QB's with direct force selection

Note you had a bunch of duplicates. Note also that the things I didn't comment on are simply things I don't wish to commit to because

As far as I can see this one will never happen:

"Finally, the ability to create your own menu of commands, organized as you'd like. "

Steve

[ January 28, 2008, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[M1A1TC]

"Most of the things on your list are likely to go in" - Steve

Thats enough for me, thanks

The duplicates were same things requested by few people

[ January 28, 2008, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: M1A1TankCommander ]