Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

saddened by poor interface

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> saddened by poor interface Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
saddened by poor interface - 7/25/2004 7:08:01 PM   
nihilimus

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 4/15/2004
Status: offline
My biggest concern when buying this game was whether the gaming interface would be cumbersome or intuitive. Unfortunately, it is the former.

Much like its difficult-to-use web site (with various popup windows, hidden and moving scroll bars, links to pages without content), Matrix Games has a game design that leaves much to be desired.

Before I get further into that criticism, I want to say that even with the shortcomings, the game is admirable in scope and depth. However, playability is hampered due to the frustrating and poorly implemented user interface.

A few notes:

· Why can’t a find arrival dates of aircraft in the database? Why doesn’t sorting by type work? (And various other issues here).
· Watching the battles is hokey to say the least – and time consuming. So I turn that off but have no visual way to go back and view where the battles occurred or with a quick click get a summary. Instead, I must be satisfied with a text display that gives me coordinates… Yet, there is no way to hover over the map and determine ones coordinates.
· Stepping through task forces is a pain. I can only “next task force” within a hex. If I open the menu to list all task forces, I can click on a task force, get its info but am not immediately taken to that portion of the map. Even if I did, I could see what was behind the menu without closing it. Same is true for airfields and air groups.
· Where can I find battle losses?
· I must continually scan where they placed the “exit” button. Sometimes in the lower right. Sometimes on the top. Who knows? I’ll get used to that after awhile, but it is still power design.

I’m sure I’ll find more to criticize after playing longer, but a poor UI is the death knell of game – or any software. I feel that those of us starved enough for a quality game with all of its historical glory will deal with these limitations, but I truly wish Matrix would work harder to get it right.

I have similar fears for other upcoming games that I’m eager for from a gaming perspective.
Post #: 1
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/25/2004 8:13:08 PM   
McNaughton

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 4/13/2004
Status: offline
I see you aren't familiar with PacWar then... One of the worst UIs I have ever played. Sometimes a left click will do something, some times a right click. HOWEVER, I can tell you that after a few initial times I have not had a single problem with PacWar's interface. WitP will take some getting used to, but the way it is set up will just take time to get used to, like PacWar.

However, some things could be improved, just like with any game.

I believe that battles have two options, one a text review of the battle, another a visible representation. You can turn both on or off at your leisure, and AFAIK, the screen hovers over the region at which the battle takes place, so you are aware where the battle is by watching the AAR and looking at the geography around you.

(in reply to nihilimus)
Post #: 2
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/25/2004 8:18:51 PM   
Primal Fury

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 7/10/2004
Status: offline
I have been wondering if anyone would post this critique. I have been very tempted to do so myself. Don't get me wrong, I like the game and I own pacwar and UV and probably every other GG game ever made...but at $75 I think I have a right to say that the interface needs improvement. It's the same interface as PacWar from '91 or something.

For example:

- Why can't I drag and drop a TF to a new destination, rather than filling forms in a 4 step process, where menu's cover the screen?

- On the Set TF Dest screen, why are friendly land units (and probably other friendly's) hidden from view?

- The loading troops process is broken; why do I need to make side notes on the load cost of a unit?

- Why is there no create TF selection from the ships in port view?

...to name a few.

I would have more time for this is it was a brand new game, but in this case the interface was that pioneered in Pacwar 10-12 years ago. Surely some extra effort could have been applied here. But you've got my money, so maybe it doesn't matter.

_____________________________


(in reply to nihilimus)
Post #: 3
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/25/2004 8:41:36 PM   
Sinjen


Posts: 113
Joined: 3/22/2002
From: Florida
Status: offline
Come on now...its alot better than the original PacWar. This is the UV interface. If your familiar with UV this is second nature. Considering the vast scope of this game, I don't think its that bad at all.

Granted, I think there are alot of things that could be streamlined or made more intuitive. However, they have never marketed this game to anything other than grognards.

(in reply to nihilimus)
Post #: 4
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/25/2004 11:23:07 PM   
nihilimus

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 4/15/2004
Status: offline
I’m quite familiar with PacWar (and WiR and other great Grigsby games), but I don’t think you can compare. PacWar is more than a decade old and computers have come a long way since then. Can’t compare as this game should have a far superior interface rather than one that is weaker in many respects.

(in reply to McNaughton)
Post #: 5
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/25/2004 11:29:04 PM   
Drex

 

Posts: 2523
Joined: 9/13/2000
From: Chico,california
Status: offline
Forget PacWar, as Sinjen mentioned, WitP is based on UV, which if you have played then the interface does not seem so strange. That is not to say it couldn't be improved but many of us have adapted to the interface and don't notice any awkwardness.

(in reply to nihilimus)
Post #: 6
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/25/2004 11:37:52 PM   
MadDawg

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
I do tend to agree that there are a few areas that could be improved and although yes, it is the same interface as UV, UV was a much smaller game in comparison. These problems were generally also there in UV, but as WITP is 10 times as complex the problems are 10 times as noticable. UV wasnt $80, either, which leaves the user expecting a little more I think.

I also dont really think that by saying 'well, there is worse out there' is really helping, either, as the developers really need to know what peoples concerns are in order to try and improve on that (especially as this engine is to be used for another game). Personally I dont think I would buy another game based on this engine unless the interface was more user friendly, and Im sure that is something the developers want to know.

I have has a few small problems, but some of my main concerns at the moment are sort of metioned above also...

* How can I find my *true* battle losses for a battle? As both sides have fog or war applied to them during the turn playback I am left guessing as to what really happened with regards to my own troops, how many I lost, etc. I think the player needs to know an accurate account of the battle from his perspective.

* I dont usually have time to watch air to air battles either *yet* if I dont I am putting myself at a disadvantage as the animation shows a more accurate representation of the battle (even though it still has FOW) than the report given afterwards, which currently can show some really silly results in comparison. This is just confusing to me - why give the player two sets of FOW'ed results with one being way more innaccurate than the other.

* As air to ship combat is one of the most important aspects of this game, there really needs to be a way to prioritise naval targets for air groups so they make 'smarter' descisions.

As someone who used to worked with interface design I can tell you that information such as battle losses, etc, should be very easy to find in a game such as this. For instance there could be an option to simply highlight all hexes in which battles that took place in the last turn, giving you the option to click on them and be given a report of the results (and even watch the movie again). Being able to see this info would be very helpful in the planning stages for the next turn. There are also many other good points mentioned above, such as the dragging and dropping option.

Dont get me wrong, I think WITP is fun has the potential to be a great game and the interfaceis currently usable, but still feels like its using old or confusing design practices in some areas which can hopefully be worked on in future patches. Players shouldnt have to fight with the engine in order to get the information or the results they need, and currently it feels like you need to do that at times.

Dawg

< Message edited by MadDawg -- 7/25/2004 9:42:00 PM >

(in reply to nihilimus)
Post #: 7
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 12:06:38 AM   
2Stepper


Posts: 947
Joined: 1/19/2003
From: South Burbs of Omaha
Status: offline
I guess the "cumbersome" feel of this game really depends on either A, your experience with UV, or B, your expectations as mentioned.

If you had no experience with Uncommon Valor, your expectations are liable to be all or nothing when you play. A love it or hate it feel for the interface.

I for one have played Uncommon Valor faithfully since it's inception, and the interface, while different grew on me quickly. For me WiTP is really much the same. In many ways its like paging through a great big combat manual with its varied pages... It doesn't really bother me.

My only suggestion would be to take the time to learn what everything does for you and roll forward from there. One of the earliest suggestions from the developers was to start small with the "battle" scenarios and move up to the big campaigns. That might just alleviate some of the aggravation as well since you'd learn the interface more effectively.

_____________________________


"Send in the Infantry. Tanks cost money... the dead cost nothing..." :)

(in reply to MadDawg)
Post #: 8
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 12:25:09 AM   
MadDawg

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
Actually I am very familiar with UV

My point is that UV on a much smaller scale than WIPT, so although the interface could be a little awkward, the player didnt have to deal with it so much per turn in the game. Now, as WITP is so much large, the the player has to spend much more time per turn working with the interface per turn and thus the problems are compounded. Sure, one can still 'work' through it as they did in UV, but if we think outside of the box there are many easy ways it could be improved to help the player.

For instance, lets take something that should be *very* simple to do yet I currently cant think of a way to do it. How can I find out how many ground combat losses I took last turn in total, per country? For that matter, how can I find out how many losses a single unit took, accurately, in one battle last turn? Another example...how can I find out how many Nells actually did not come home from one particular target last turn so I can decide if it was worth the loss?

Im not trying to argue, just trying to point out something that is important to the player and should be very simple to find, yet isnt (I dont think?).

Dawg

< Message edited by MadDawg -- 7/25/2004 10:28:05 PM >

(in reply to nihilimus)
Post #: 9
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 12:58:53 AM   
dinsdale


Posts: 382
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline
I didn't buy UV, I've been waiting to see feedback of the stability, bugs and gameplay of this game. Sadly, for me, an interface is one of the issues which either allows or ruins replayability. That's probably enough to make me pass on this game. It's not 1995 anymore, though too many designers don't appear to realise this.

(in reply to MadDawg)
Post #: 10
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 1:13:58 AM   
nihilimus

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 4/15/2004
Status: offline
And I think dinsdale has hit it on the head.

A game must allow the player to easily move through the tasks and see the grand overview of a game... especially one of strategic nature like WitP. Any game that fails to do this, is -- quite frankly -- a bore.

I also work in an arena where UI is a supreme importance. Unfortunately, it seems there is a constant struggle to get developers to see beyond programming tasks to the the real workflow users of the end user. While I'm certain this game went through rigorous beta testing, I question whether a constructive but critical analysis was made of the UI.

In retrospect, I do wish I had my $70 back because I"m really not happy with the game.

(in reply to dinsdale)
Post #: 11
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 1:19:32 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32946
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
The WitP interface has a number of improvements in flexibility and information over UV. If you've been playing WitP for a while, load up UV again and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm sorry it's getting in the way of the game for some. In my opinion comparing it to PacWar doesn't make any sense interface-wise. This is a much better interface than any similar Grigsby monster-game (except UV) has ever had, in my opinion. Of course, to each his own and your mileage may vary, but it's not from 1995 IMHO.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to nihilimus)
Post #: 12
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 1:26:15 AM   
Banquet

 

Posts: 1107
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline
I must admit the interface isn't great in a lot of respects but it's not THAT bad!

I totally understand nihilimus's views - the exit button being placed in a different location on every screen is especially annoying - but it certainly isn't so bad as to ruin the game.

The worst interface I can think of is Harpoon III. That took me a while to get the hang of and still niggles me.. but sometimes u just gotta get used to something to find the gem of a game underneath. Working in government the computer interface I use at work often infuriates me.. I wouldn't be surprised if people working in the armed forces feel the same about their software.

It's a shame that sometimes the most infantile games have the best interface while the most complex have the worst.. one of life's paradox's.. but don't be put off WiTP because of that..

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to nihilimus)
Post #: 13
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 1:35:45 AM   
Platoonist


Posts: 665
Joined: 5/11/2003
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
The whole exit button location controversy has me a bit befuddled. Whenever I wanna exit a screen I just hit the ESC button. Why waste a mouse click?

_____________________________

Ever the optimist..


(in reply to Banquet)
Post #: 14
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 1:39:39 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6358
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
I find the interface to be done very well. Maybe its my quick reflexes and young age
Learing the hot keys also helps.

(in reply to Platoonist)
Post #: 15
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 1:40:10 AM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3086
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline
I agree! I have no problem with the interface. There could be some changes but overall I think it does a "great job", conceding the size and scope of the game.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The WitP interface has a number of improvements in flexibility and information over UV. If you've been playing WitP for a while, load up UV again and you'll see what I'm talking about. I'm sorry it's getting in the way of the game for some. In my opinion comparing it to PacWar doesn't make any sense interface-wise. This is a much better interface than any similar Grigsby monster-game (except UV) has ever had, in my opinion. Of course, to each his own and your mileage may vary, but it's not from 1995 IMHO.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 16
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 1:41:30 AM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3086
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline
Same here.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

I find the interface to be done very well. Maybe its my quick reflexes and young age
Learing the hot keys also helps.


_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 17
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 1:44:47 AM   
Zorfwaddle

 

Posts: 259
Joined: 3/16/2001
From: Pensacola, FL
Status: offline
Heh heh, just remember, age and cunning will always overcome youth and vitality!

Regards,

_____________________________

"AK-47. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every m****rf****r in the room. Accept no substitutes." Ordell Robbie - "Jackie Brown"

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 18
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 1:50:02 AM   
MadDawg

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
Well in that case maybe Im missing something if this interface is indeed great, so Ill ask these questions again

How can I find out how many ground combat losses I took last turn in total, or per country? For that matter and more importantly, how can I find out how many losses a single land unit took, accurately, in one battle last turn? Another one...how can I find out how many Nells actually did not come home from one particular target last turn so I can decide if it was worth the loss? This is such basic and impotant information that isnt available unless Im missing it??

As Ive mentioned, I think its usable at the moment, but surely stuff like the above should easily be available to the user, shouldnt it? As Ive also said, Im not trying to put down the game, just trying to point out areas of improvement. Ive done a lot a beta testing in the past so I guess its just habit

Dawg

< Message edited by MadDawg -- 7/26/2004 12:14:09 AM >

(in reply to nihilimus)
Post #: 19
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 3:19:42 AM   
myros

 

Posts: 289
Joined: 7/1/2004
Status: offline
The things you mention are features not interface ... and sadly they are missing features ;)

You can see aircraft losses total for today or since the start on the "i" screen. I agree it would be good to know these things. Even just a more accurate report for your own side, we should have better information than the enemy about what happened with our own troops.

I dont think we should have "perfect" info though, we are in game context the supreme commander, information arriving at our level will always have inacuracies, exagerations and out of date info. Thats realistic and keeps it interesting ... but I would like some better daily info charts on missions, losses etc Maybe something that can be requested in the wish list area. Who knows they may listen.

As far as the UI goes I agree there are some problems but after playing WitP since release (what, a week ago or so?) I can honestly say I dont even notice the UI anymore, my brain has just leanred what needs to be done and does it ..which is fine by me :) If I stopped to think about it I could pick things out that need improving but am having so much fun I really could care less where the 'exit' button is located.

Myros

< Message edited by myros -- 7/26/2004 1:21:46 AM >

(in reply to MadDawg)
Post #: 20
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 3:29:00 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
A game with this much scope, at this level of detail, crys out for an interface that
is as simple and intuitive as possible so that players can concentrate on learning
the tactics and strategy rather than spend days trying to get used to the interface.
Unfortunately, the best that can be said for WITP"s is that it isn't as bad as some
earlier efforts, and if you finally got the hang of clicking your way through the
earlier ones you have a "leg up" on learning this one. That doesn't make it good;
just less bad.

A perfect example of "kludge" is the "pop-up" control screens. Click on a base and
you bring up a lot of information concerning it..., but the "pop-up" blots out the area
of the screen containing the base and everything around it. Now you can control it,
but you can't see it! A small annoyance..., but repeated 10,000 times it is irritating.
Almost all of the interface's problems would be acceptable if only needed a few times
during a game..., but when you need to access them dozens of times every turn it's
"kludge". And having made the screen big enough to blot out the base and it's im-
mediate area, why not make it larger still and include more specific action choices
on the same screen (or even just make it easier to read for the 1,000th time?)?

(in reply to MadDawg)
Post #: 21
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 4:10:17 AM   
MadDawg

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: myros

The things you mention are features not interface ... and sadly they are missing features ;)



Actually no, they arent . If you study interface design you learn its not just about how the screen looks and reacts to the user, but its also about how the program delivers important information to the user and how easily the user can find the info when they need it. The information I mentioned is not just hard to find, its impossible.

The ship targetting thing is kinda a feature I must admit, but you can already target LR CAP onto a task force so it seems inconsistant that you cant actually tell air groups which one to attack.


quote:


You can see aircraft losses total for today or since the start on the "i" screen.


Yup, but if I have 10 squadrons flying nells then that information is useless with regards to an individual squadron.

For instance thi info could be provided as a second page for a land or air unit in their info screen that simply lists their combat report minus the heavy FOW for you side (as both players see the same movie playback). You click on your Nell squadron, click on their combat report and you see a report from each battle they had over the last 24 hours. You have a list of how many were lost by Air to Air and Flak, and what they attacked and hit. It doesnt need to be 100% accurate, but most commanders can count the amount of planes that didnt return without too much trouble.

Dawg

< Message edited by MadDawg -- 7/26/2004 2:23:45 AM >

(in reply to myros)
Post #: 22
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 5:07:47 AM   
Kid


Posts: 6624
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
There is a wish list pinned at the top. Specific recommendations on how to improve the interface will be looked at.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and currently testing War in the East.


(in reply to MadDawg)
Post #: 23
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 5:47:04 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5151
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
Nihilimus, a few suggestions on things you may have overlooked:

quote:

If I open the menu to list all task forces, I can click on a task force, get its info but am not immediately taken to that portion of the map. Even if I did, I could see what was behind the menu without closing it.

If you click on the *coordinates* on the right side of the List-All-TF screen, you will be taken to the location of that TF. If instead you click on the TF number on the left of the List-All screen, you'll get more info on the TF itself. I like having both these options, and I hope this isn't changed. Yes, it might be nice to be able to minimize the See-All screen once you're taken to the TF in question, but in general I like the fact that it stays open.

quote:

Watching the battles is hokey to say the least – and time consuming. So I turn that off but have no visual way to go back and view where the battles occurred or with a quick click get a summary.

Hmm? If you hit ESC, you'll skip the visual and get to a combat summary report. Perhaps you have the reports turned off?

Also, for important battles, I find the air-to-air and air-to-naval and ship-to-ship battles quite fun to watch. Yes, I skip the routine stuff sometimes. My pet peeve is the ground combat battles, which seem to go on forever.

quote:

Why can’t a find arrival dates of aircraft in the database?

You can find these dates in the Replacement Pool screen, I think. And you can sort by date in that same screen. You can also sort by type here. I use this more than the database.

quote:

I must continually scan where they placed the “exit” button. Sometimes in the lower right. Sometimes on the top. Who knows? I’ll get used to that after awhile, but it is still power design.

I hadn't even noticed. I use ESC a lot. It always works.

I do have a few minor complaints about the interface myself, but none of the things you've mentioned bother me except the absence of a keyboard way to go through each TF. (There is a mouse way to go thru each base, but I never use it; I would use a keyboard method though.) I'd also like an option to make a base both my home port and destination hex; currently you can do that only with a major base like San Francisco. But I'm so busy having fun with this game that none of this really matters much to me. Maybe I'm also spoiled because it's such a big improvement in UI over UV and Pacwar.

(in reply to nihilimus)
Post #: 24
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 6:02:52 AM   
Mogami


Posts: 12608
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline
Hi, It might be because I came from UV and have been using the interface for over 2 years but I've never had a problem in putting orders or finding what I wanted and compared to UV there have been many improvements making it easier. (I have a hard time playing UV now because I've been spoiled by WITP)
It takes a while to learn them all but there are many time savers. Almost every complaint I've read in this thread will go away once you learn the system.

I call up all land based air. Sort by type and then using that menu go down the line changing airgroups. I don't have to move from base to base. (you can sort the groups by base after you've selected the class (Fighter-Fighterbomber etc) sorted by model. You can find every thing in the same manner.

Actual loses suffered by particular units are not given. But if you assign a group of 27 Betties to a mission and next turn there are 24 left....... (Do you not look at airgroups that have been in combat the preceeding turn before deciding their current orders?) I suppose it will be easy for them (Mike Wood) to add this if enough people think it important and enough room can be found on the already crowded screen. (maybe there is a smaller font he can use)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 25
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 6:13:19 AM   
dinsdale


Posts: 382
Joined: 5/1/2003
Status: offline
Well if it's not 1995 does the UI utilize the mouse wheel? right clicking? configurable hotkeys? configurable macros? multiple pop-ups? re-positionable/re-sizable pop-ups? all information within 2 or preferably 1 screen of the main display? How about a custimizable menus and toolbars? resizable pop-ups, pop up position and size memory? Can different parts of the interface be moved, resized and anchored/unanchored? Does the interface do everything necessary to allow a player to feel comfortable and customize it for his benefit and intuitiveness?

(in reply to Mogami)
Post #: 26
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 6:15:04 AM   
BartM


Posts: 107
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline
1 ) make the group window transparent ie, when you click on a TF and the window comes up, clear that up like you do when you hover your mouse over a base.

2) loose the text reports. they're cute, but serve no real purpose other then bragging rights. If you want to make reports about combat, make them clickable so you can go to the hex the action took place. (this is for MANY of the "reports")... Coastwatchers, well, isn't a point really to even have that animation, or that turn, simply turn on TF's that are sighted, and skip the delay in turn. (again, I refer to PAC and the small black circles, which were easy to see, and a glance and a left click, brought up the entire battle be it land, sea or air). I really do mean please drop those silly text printouts... the so called AAR's really do nothing IN game. you have to left click on the map to get a hex number, then go from there (reguardless how long you play this game) it will be a pain to even bother looking up battles.

Signat, combat, coastwatchers, everything... really no need to have them visually in the game, since there is no real way to go to that area without drudging through the map. And would really cut down the turns.

3) in-game help. is none. should be. a simple F1 keystroke to give basic commands is very easy to add.

4) Loading costs. if your troops require loading cost of 17,832 APs, and you use 20,000 AP points, you EXPECT to load that group. not sit and calculate supply load, troop load and so forth. (too much detail is an over-kill). Loading troops in small groups of TFs, then having to go back and regroup those TF's into a main TF just to get the troops loaded is kinda silly. and very time consuming.

5) remove the auto-regrouping of AIR. the computer places parts of the Air Group in the weirdest places trying to get to the main group. If your smart enough to split up an air group, your smart enough to place them back together again :) (this leads into the next one)

6) LOCATE SHIP, LOCATE AIR GROUP, yadda yadda :) those simple buttons on top giving you a complete list of items, really is TOO simple (too simple is an under-kill) again refering back to PAC, locate what, CV's, ok list all CV's I own, ok, left click takes me to the CV I want to look at AT the dock it's at, or the sea hex it's currently in. (K.I.S.S.... keep it simple...) did I mention too simple is as bad ? :)

there is much much more, and I really am trying to make lite of some of these, but really if your expecting people to sit and play for hours at a time, then you need to offer SOME help, instead of just simply landing the entire Pacific war in their lap and say, "good luck".

(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 27
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 6:20:36 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13409
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

Well if it's not 1995 does the UI utilize the mouse wheel? right clicking? configurable hotkeys? configurable macros? multiple pop-ups? re-positionable/re-sizable pop-ups? all information within 2 or preferably 1 screen of the main display? How about a custimizable menus and toolbars? resizable pop-ups, pop up position and size memory? Can different parts of the interface be moved, resized and anchored/unanchored? Does the interface do everything necessary to allow a player to feel comfortable and customize it for his benefit and intuitiveness?


I suppose they could have completely scrapped the UV UI and started from scratch with something more modern, but juding by the market segment, that would have ruled out about 80% of their customer base is is really not something you want to do with a specialty product. The footprint for this game with a Windows type GUI would kill them game completely from a performance standpoint. A lot of folks are borderline right now.

I've yet to see anyone post anything that would actually be a benefit to making the game easier to use. All click-spots let you jump around the map are record speed now. There are a few sort filter views that are not working quite right at the moment, but those are bugs, not lack of UI.

(in reply to dinsdale)
Post #: 28
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 6:31:41 AM   
MadDawg

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 6/24/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Actual loses suffered by particular units are not given. But if you assign a group of 27 Betties to a mission and next turn there are 24 left....... (Do you not look at airgroups that have been in combat the preceeding turn before deciding their current orders?) I suppose it will be easy for them (Mike Wood) to add this if enough people think it important and enough room can be found on the already crowded screen. (maybe there is a smaller font he can use)




Yup, you could do that, but the point is that the user inferface should display this critial information without me trying to remember what the value was of my 1000's of air and land groups from the previous turn (something you wont always check if they ar on naval attack).

Sure, I can take a guess at what it was previously, but seriously, *surely* something as important as actual ground losses or air losses in a battle should be recoded somewhere, shouldnt they? If it cant fit on the screen, add a second page as I suggest above or think of something else (I think we all know that there have been plenty of complaints about the font already).

Being able to have a land battle somewhere and examine each of your units losses the turn after seems critical in order to judge how your troops are performing in the battlefield and thus work out if they need more troops, more supplies, more artillery, air support, etc. Currently you are forced to guess at their performace by using your enemies FOW's battle reports which can vary wildly. If Im wrong, please correct me.

Guy, Im not trying to be a pain in the butt, I think that this game has a lot of potential and Im just trying to help. For a game of this price and scale though, I really expected some more polish than UV had. Having to guess at all of this critical info is something is expect from an RTS where I can just build more units, not a wargame where it is actually important. I am concerned that such things as those mentioned here are being swept under the carpet as unimportant as it really does hinder play at the moment.

Dawg

< Message edited by MadDawg -- 7/26/2004 4:45:29 AM >

(in reply to Mogami)
Post #: 29
RE: saddened by poor interface - 7/26/2004 6:32:37 AM   
Pappy


Posts: 625
Joined: 9/12/2000
From: NY, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

I've yet to see anyone post anything that would actually be a benefit to making the game easier to use


Well how about this suggestion:
A convoy screen with pull down menus and "fill-in-the-blanks" that lets you assign a "supply/resource/fuel/oil" convoy route between any two bases on the map. It would include capacity, escort, where to draw the empty AKs & TRs from, continous, one-time, etc., etc.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> saddened by poor interface Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.120