Discontinue Option "costPU" + Redesign "costResources" BUTTON Display #3475
Comments
|
For point 1 and 2, the changes on Pull requests for the following maps (10): Specifically: Mass changed, on the referring xml: Modified actionstext and politicstext to give costResources info in the button. Main changes: Updated occurrences for the following games (11): Removed all occurrences from the following games* (5): *all occurrences of costPU had a value equal to 0 note: I've removed costPU only if all occurrences for the same game were having value equal to 0 (otherwise costPU at value 0 have been updated too (for example, for the two games of total_world_war)). This should be all to cover point 1 and 2. |
|
Do you advise |
|
Am I misunderstanding something, or do these changes remove the currently displayed resource cost in the buttons? I hope these changes will still have the engine automatically display some meaningful information about the cost/price for pushing a button? Of course a mapmaker should aim for a full text description besides the button, but to keep things simple, cost and output should be clearly separated. And it can be complicated to have to write/read both cost and output in the same text. Actually I see several reasons for the button continuing to display the price:
... or have I misunderstood these changes? |
|
No, you didn't misunderstand. As I said in forum, my proposal was to totally remove the costResources display. What I don't understand is why you (or anyone) would be against this. Having something like "[5 PUs]" at the start of the BUTTON text is something so cheap that you can simply add in the BUTTON description (or you can communicate it differently (easily better)), if you want to, and the additional time of doing that is basically nothing compared to everything else related to devising, coding and testing that user action. All the reasons that you are pointing out seems to imply that now there is some sort of autodisplay that makes things clear that is going to be irreplaceably lost, but all there is the automatical addition of a "[x PUs]" etc. at the start of the button description, that you can simply write down and have it looking exactly the same as now. Anyway, for the existent maps, you can see that all my changes except Civil War will look exactly the same as they do now after the autodisplay is removed. So, nobody is going to notice a difference (assuming I didn't mess up). If, for whatever reasons, people appear to be wanting an autodisplay, my suggestion would, then, be to display it at the start of the side description (like it is now the case for the chance success (look at the Total World War politics, for an example)), using the "resources" images with a stack number (just the same as you get in the bottom bar). But, even in this case, I would rather have the mapmaker being able to customize the description with the images he wants to. |
Currently, it is not complicated at all. You just need adding "[x PUs] " at the start of a description for an user action that costs x PUs, etc., if that would not be automatically generated anymore, and it would look exactly the same as it does now (the gain is that it doesn't have to look that way, but it still totally can, and it's basic writing). |
|
Or a "resources" image with the stack number (if that is feasible, no idea) can stay left to the button, between the flag and the button itself (the flag of the action maker is actually pointless, as it is the turn player), to make clearer that is the input you are going to pay, while you will probably describe the output in the button and the description to the right. But the current change at this actual issue is that you can simply add yourself "[5 PUs] " at the start of the BUTTON message; so I really don't see how the current autodisplay feature is giving any good value. Seemed to me obvious to remove that cheap thing, beside needing updating the maps, even more so now that I believe it looks particularly bad in the moment you have 3+ resources listed (it was barely decent looking for PUs only). |
|
@cernel My concerns are mostly in regards to keeping things simple for the player to understand and having some consistency across maps. That's why I see separation of cost and payment important, plus I think it would be great with a simple display of the cost (btw. is cost always resources or can the price be like changing relationships/starting a war? Or something else?) I actually also thought about proposing a cost display similar to the one in unit purchase, but you beat me to it :-) And I had to be sure I didn't misunderstand all these changes. A display like in unit purchase would be both simple, quick to understand and lead to consistency when playing maps. I have always wondered about the flags. Why do they display? Can they ever display other flags than the player's own? I have often considered proposing that the mapmaker could define a small picture to be displayed. Something that would fit the outcome, recipient, trade, event or whatever. I don't see a reason for flags. Maybe only as a stand-in-images if there are no mapmaker defined images. |
|
Answers: The changes would be only and exactly:
I wouldn't mind if a number 3 for displaying the costResources with resources images, same as in bottom bar, either left or right to the button, is added to the list. I guess the changes I pushed would be still good enough. The action maker flag is, obviously, useless, as only the turn player can make action anyways. I guess it can be argued it is nice to see (I tend to think so). However, additional flags are displayed for each player that has the ability to veto the action. That display is also a bit confusing, as, whatever the way flags are listed (I don't know), sometimes you have the flag of the one accepting after and some other times you have it before the other flag, or the action maker flag can be mixed up anywhere, in case there are several players with veto abilities. |
|
Are my pull requests going to be merged as soon as the new stable is out? Any review or info on this matter from the maps admins? I understood (in forum) that @ron-murhammer was positive on these changes, but I wonder if this matter is anyway undecided or just waiting for the new stable. Also, I'm not sure if I cannot touch or delete all those repositories cluttering my profile until this matter is closed. |
|
If there are major doubts about these pulls, I would prefer my pull requests being closed, so I can delete all these repositories in my profile, rather than having this pending for an undetermined amount of time, probably never to be merged. If they are going to be merged, and just need some more months, I'm fine with waiting. I understood that the suggestion was accepted, and just needed to be done. |
|
An example of what removing the autodisply would allow is in my Civil War PR. Currently, the engine forces you, for example, to have something like: If the autodisplay removed, you can still have that, if you want, but you can also have something like: |
|
@Cernelius @FrostionAAA Did we come to a decision on this? It looks like @FrostionAAA updated all his maps to replace costPUs but assumes the engine will still display the resources for the action. While @Cernelius looks like your PRs (besides the delete ones) assume the engine won't display the resources so you added them to the message in the properties file. The current stable 12226 has the engine still display the resources in a standard way. I'm fine either way just need to decide how to move forward so we can actually remove costPUs from the engine all together in the incompatible release we are working on. |
|
So, practically, I understood that @ron-murhammer agreed with my proposal in forum, so I went ahead doing it. This is the thread: Excerpts:
redrum:
Cernel:
redrum:
Cernel:
Frostion:
redrum:
Cernel:
So, anyways, now it is up to you to decide either:
All the above, of course, assuming everything has been done as intended. Just tell me what to do, so I can close this. I don't think I want to use user actions much; just I think that display is awful, especially with several resources (and you can still have it, if you want, by writing it down), but at this point I just want to get this closed and the deprecated element removed one way or the other. |
|
@ron-murhammer You can also go the way number 2 yourself, by just making new PR that are simply my PR, except not changing any |
|
@Cernelius @FrostionAAA So I took a look at this and decided I'm going to instead have the engine generate the resource amounts with images like the bottom bar and purchase window. So this way either approach can be used. I'll post some details shortly. |
|
Here is the PR: #4125 |
|
Looks nice to me. I wonder how it would look like if the action costs two different kinds of resources? What will happen to the button text? Will it follow the first resource listed or will it be centered and float between line 1 and 2. Maybe it would look best if the button text was displayed above or besides each button, instead of on the button. A totally different solution could be to have the buttons only display text, and have the resources be listed with icons in a line under the button explantation text? This would seem more "clean" to me, as the current solution could look a bit messy if an action costs a list of resources? |
|
@Cernelius You've name dropped the wrong ReDrUm :) |
|
I've name dropped the wrong Cernel too. Maybe it should not do that when the references are quoted, unless you are supposed to never quote something outside GitHub. The only one I'm fully responsible for is having got the wrong Frostion, as well. |
Cernelius
changed the title
|
The following pull request are still to be merged (or closed): What is the reason for waiting merging them, if any, and, in this case, when should they be merged? Is the matter undecided, or we are waiting for some particular release, or what? Can I remove the referring maps from my profile and can I be informed what I should do in case I would wand to do other (unrelated) pull requests on the same maps or even files? |
|
@Cernelius Since the latest stable 13066 has the engine change to add costResources, I now merged all of those PRs. The final change is to remove costPU from the engine all together since now there shouldn't be any maps using it. I'll look to create that PR shortly. |
|
@Cernelius This should be done now. Closing this issue. |
|
For the record, here it is a before and after (what at this issue) of how stuff is presented to the users, in "Civil War". Before: After: On this regard, I think that the button gets too bright, when you over it with your pointer. It becomes hardly readable to me: Just to be safe, I've double checked everything. I've run a full search in all maps in download list, excluding pdf files, with the entry "costPU", non case sensitive, confirming there are no occurrences, beside only: Since that is a changelog, made when the option existed, I believe it should not be touched. A new changelog can be made, specifying that "costPU" has been updated to the respective "costResources", but I don't think it is needed, so I'm not doing it. Arguably, since that is a changelog for users, I should not have used code-only terms, but expressed the matter in a way to be clear to anyone (so, I should have said "Lowered the PUs cost", instead of "Lowered the costPU"). However, as this matter has been made only on maps available in download list, I warn you that there may be maps in the repository not available for download that have "costPU" in their xml; or anyways have been ignored by this general rework. I've limited myself to download list because it is what I can mass download. I don't know how to mass download all repository maps (anyways, I assume those not in download list are mostly broken maps anyhow). On the other hand, so far, I've never seen any out-of-download list maps being taken over (fixed or whatever) and added to download list, by anyone. To benefit the posterity, here it is the current non case sensitive list of "costResources" in all files in all maps in download list, excluding pdf: |
|
Only comment I can make, leaving it to the admins of that repository, is that I would harmonize the way it is coded in Total World War. Meaning all as either:
or:
(I suggest the first formulation, that is what I used in all basic cases, as you can see in the report list) |
Related feature request:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/418/expand-useractionattachment-politicalactionattachment-to-all-resources
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: