EPTCommunity Feedback Update: Worker Supply UI - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Korakys
New Zealand272 Posts
| ||
|
breaker1328
Canada296 Posts
On September 17 2016 09:09 Korakys wrote: If it was up to me the map would be displayed directly and largely in the middle of the screen in a semi-transparent manner (like Diablo 2 IIRC) -- selectively disableable of course for battles or watching for burrowed mines, etc. And the UI should be like the Gameheart UI too (obviously only showing your details and not your opponents). Blizzard would never do this of course -- it's not fashionable to have "clutter" these days. There's enough stuff going on in even a low level sc2 game to have that much clutter in the middle of the screen. Personally, I think the in game worker counting stuff is good enough as is. | ||
|
MLuneth
Australia557 Posts
On September 17 2016 03:29 Dillon1 wrote: For me Wings of Liberty was the golden days, all the casting all the in depth and somewhat stable gameplay... Everyone knew some general timings when the few styles could attack and it was actually really cool as fuck.. Now every game is random as fuck.. Because of all the fast acting spells that will generally turn out different every game, such as bile and adepts.. and liberatior locations. I think it's much harder to take a stable 3rd and play now WoL was never really stable until BL infestor and people knew the timings because if you didn't die to those timings you won the game | ||
|
StatixEx
United Kingdom779 Posts
| ||
|
Zulu23
Germany132 Posts
With Real Time Display of the cuttent worker count, you will never have that issue. | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
Having this number displayed at all point will make the game much more easy in a stupid way. | ||
|
Aegwynn
Italy460 Posts
| ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On September 17 2016 08:16 zyce wrote: I think this is where "sensible defaults" comes in. I think this comment really confuses the conversation. "Make everything an option" is bad design. The option UI is also an UI, and you don't want to have too much information there either for the same reasons you don't want it in the main UI. "Make everything an option" is a cop out for people not wanting do the hard work of designing the UI properly. Unfortunately it's not uncommon. | ||
|
spydog
United States21 Posts
| ||
|
highsis
259 Posts
| ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
| ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On September 17 2016 03:54 Excalibur_Z wrote: Generally that's not something you want to gate behind an options menu. There's an extra burden of knowledge there (you have to know that the option exists, you have to know what it does, you have to know why--or whether--it's beneficial for you). I know it's easy to say "just make it an option" but that's very rarely the best solution. The other thing is that it has to have some default behavior even if you did make it an option, so what would that default behavior be? I think the mouseover thing is probably a satisfactory compromise and agree with the devs' reasonings completely. You only care about how many workers you have when you're deciding whether to expand or after you've been raided, which are specific and special circumstances. I am sorry, but this way of thinking is exactly the reason why so much of new software is such shit. Yeah, make whatever you think is the most genius way of doing thing the default - but what the hell does it hurt to have an option?! There are so many cool things that people have suggested to which Blizzard just said "that would be too many options and that would be confusing for the players" - which almost makes me vomit. If the player doesn't want to customize anything, he is completely welcome to use the defaults, but how is such a person hurt by the fact that the customization option exists for people who are not completely dumb? If you thing the menus would be too complicated, just make a huge "advanced options" tab that can be scrolled down for hours, or hide it all away into an ascii config file, but for humanity's sake stop removing options because you think people are too stupid to be presented with options! Edit: the same goes to this guy: On September 17 2016 22:28 Mendelfist wrote: "Make everything an option" is bad design. The option UI is also an UI, and you don't want to have too much information there either for the same reasons you don't want it in the main UI. "Make everything an option" is a cop out for people not wanting do the hard work of designing the UI properly. Unfortunately it's not uncommon. But I WANT the information, I want to have these options. Why can't I have them? Just because the mantra of "proper UI" is more important than what I want? But who do you make the software for in the first place? Again, if you really thing the average user doesn't have the ability to process more than twenty options (even though I can't imagine how such user plays such a complex game), then hide it somewhere, where only dedicated users will find it. But do not take choice away because of buzzwords (unless you want to work for Apple). | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On September 18 2016 03:40 opisska wrote:But I WANT the information, I want to have these options. Type "about:config" in Firefox. That's a bad config UI. There is no way to know if something is in there. I would have to stumble on the information in a forum or something. That makes the UI not very useful. I don't want Blizzard to put effort in useless things so you get a big fat NO from me. One extra option wouldn't change anything of course, but this "let's make it an option" comes up in almost every single UI discussion. No. Let's not. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On September 18 2016 04:49 Mendelfist wrote: Type "about:config" in Firefox. That's a bad config UI. There is no way to know if something is in there. I would have to stumble on the information in a forum or something. That makes the UI not very useful. I don't want Blizzard to put effort in useless things so you get a big fat NO from me. One extra option wouldn't change anything of course, but this "let's make it an option" comes up in almost every single UI discussion. No. Let's not. about:config was actually an example I wanted to throw at you, but thought about it too late and was too lazy to edit my post. How does the existence of this page hurt any user of Firefox that doesn't want to meddle with it? For me it was useful many times and the high level of configurability is one of the main reasons I am using FF in the first place. Do you really get somehow mysteriously offended by the very thought that the software you use has an option page that you don't like? Nobody is forcing you to use it, since there is a selection (which I would guess is sufficient, or probably even too big for your liking) of options accessible "normally". Removing about:config would be of zero benefit to you and to detriment to me, so why should it be done? | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On September 18 2016 05:10 opisska wrote:How does the existence of this page hurt any user of Firefox that doesn't want to meddle with it? It hides things that I want or need to meddle with. For every option you add to the Starcraft UI it gets harder and harder to get an overview. If I can't browse through the options with a low effort I won't bother and it becomes useless. Blizzard is well aware of this of course. That's why you won't get your option for the Worker/Army feature. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15979 Posts
On September 18 2016 03:40 opisska wrote: I am sorry, but this way of thinking is exactly the reason why so much of new software is such shit. Yeah, make whatever you think is the most genius way of doing thing the default - but what the hell does it hurt to have an option?! It hurts because casuals feel intimidated by a huge options menu. casuals want to know what they are playing and what options there are so they will scroll through the options and when there are to many options available and they not even understand what they do exacly it can definitely intimidate them from playing sc2 because they think it's so complicated. and no, an advanced settings tab wouldn't help because casuals would still click on it. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On September 18 2016 05:24 Mendelfist wrote: It hides things that I want or need to meddle with. For every option you add to the Starcraft UI it gets harder and harder to get an overview. If I can't browse through the options with a low effort I won't bother and it becomes useless. Blizzard is well aware of this of course. That's why you won't get your option for the Worker/Army feature. Why are you constantly avoiding to address my actual arguments? Your reply doesn't make logical sense - you are against "hiding" things you want to meddle with and the solution is to not have them at all? How does that help you in ... anything? Please, explain what harm ant to whom is caused by taking all the options you do not want to include and summarily including them on a separate, possible hard to use place. The harm cannot be "the options aren't easily accessible", when the other possibility is that they aren't accessible at all. On September 18 2016 05:24 Charoisaur wrote: It hurts because casuals feel intimidated by a huge options menu. casuals want to know what they are playing and what options there are so they will scroll through the options and when there are to many options available and they not even understand what they do exacly it can definitely intimidate them from playing sc2 because they think it's so complicated. and no, an advanced settings tab wouldn't help because casuals would still click on it. The other guy has actually given me a great rebuttal to this kind of arguments. The vast majority of Firefox users are total BFUs, the "casuals" of internet browsing - do you think that they are intimidated by about:config? 99 % of Windows users do not understand shit about registers, but these are still user-accessible in every version to date. This argument doesn't hold any water at all. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24211 Posts
| ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On September 18 2016 07:12 opisska wrote:you are against "hiding" things you want to meddle with and the solution is to not have them at all? There is a third option. DONT HIDE THEM! The advanced options UI in Firefox could have been useful. The designers could have done their job, and made it a reasonable sized collection of options that the advanced user may want to change. They were lazy and put every option they could think of in there instead. The result is that I don't know if there is anything in there that I would like to change. I've never found it. The Starcraft UI doesn't have "advanced options". Maybe you could add it and make room for more options, but it's still a bad idea to make it into a dumpster where you put "everything else" without extra thought. UI design rules still apply for the same reasons they apply everywhere else. -- Edit: In general I'm against "advanced options". It encourages the behaviour above. The correct way to handle a lot of information is to categorize it so it becomes easier to find. Having the same type of options in several places is the wrong way. In the case of Starcraft and Worker/Army it belongs in the Gameplay tab not an Advanced tab, so you get a NO vote from me for "advanced options" too. Edit2: So yes, the answer in this specific case is that it's better to not have the option at all. | ||
|
Alch3mist
Belgium29 Posts
I would prefer if they showed it all the time (in a more discrete manner than the supply count), or add one more gameplay option to show it all the time. I think it would help low level players to focus on making enough workers (while not making too much), and would help higher level players to get the exact value they want (avoiding the need to check it manually, which is APM that could better be spent somewhere else), especially in long games where workers are split among lots of bases and where it's often hard to know how many were lost due to a drop or some harass. | ||
| ||
