Graphical display of Movement points

Post by **irrevenant** » August 12th, 2006, 1:46 am

In another thread, Zol suggested:
Restricting movement costs (and, incidentally, defense) to few values allows them to be represented by clearly distinguishable graphics (in future, or by anyone who draws up their own charts). E.g. bars of varying length and colour.

The present column of digits doesn't tell me anything at a glance and getting a general idea from finer distinctions would be even more difficult.

Dragon Master · Post by **Dragon Master** » August 12th, 2006, 2:13 am

IMO, putting these statistics into graphs wouldn' help any more, they would just tell you what takes the least/most movement or defence. Of course this is useful, but I am much happier with plain numbers.

Post by **irrevenant** » August 12th, 2006, 2:21 am

Based on Zol's insight, I would suggest displaying movement as follow:

Calculate a percentage on each terrain by MP cost on that terrain. Subtract from 100 (so better = higher number) eg. Elvish Fighter: 5MP, 3MP on Mountains = 40%.

Display the bar a coloured bar against each terrain as follows:
Up to 50% Red
51%-75% Yellow
76%-100% Green

The numbers would still be displayed, but this would give an effective 'at a glance' overview of a unit's movement.

If there's room, it might also be nice to have a little graphic of the terrain too.

[EDIT]Here's a mockup - the terrain graphic idea didn't pan out - not enough space available - this is the movement chart for a Cavalryman. Little "N/A"s might be appropriate for any terrain which exceds a unit's MP, too.[/EDIT]

Oreb · Post by **Oreb** » August 12th, 2006, 3:01 am

That is pretty good. I support this idea.

Make Wesnoth Idiotproof

zol · Post by **zol** » August 12th, 2006, 5:06 am

Oreb wrote:Make Wesnoth Idiotproof

Thanks a lot

Part of my thinking behind this is that there are 12 [edit: 15 now, sorry] basic terrain types, but units tend to fall into few basic categories.

The existing display does nothing to reveal these patterns, but emphasises the idea that every value is completely independent.

New players have to work these things out from scratch; they don't have the benefit of just knowing after long experience. I still haven't found a reference for named movetypes ('smallfoot' etc.), and don't know how many there are.

What I consider would be most useful is to observe some kind of natural ordering and grouping corresponding to the majority of units, and against which anything exotic would stand out for closer attention.

Here is a quick mod of your mockup as an example.
I have other ideas on actual presentation on which I'll elaborate later.

Lord_Aether · Post by **Lord_Aether** » August 12th, 2006, 5:08 am

Looks nice. A lot more readable at a glance.

Post by **Zhukov** » August 12th, 2006, 7:39 am

Meh. Don't see why anyone would want/need it, but it couldn't hurt.

zol · Post by **zol** » August 12th, 2006, 9:35 am

One including defence. It is perfectly clear what the numerical values are if those are what you need.

Defence is linear, movecost is inverse.

edit: Also the bars showing 10% to 100% defence, and 1 to 6 movement cost.
Note that bright green is 70% defence as this is the normal upper bound, and anything above that is a bit shinier.
I don't anticipate movement cost of 5 or 6 being used as this would split access for quick/non-quick units of the same type in many cases, but it doesn't hurt to retain some flexibility.

Tomsik · Post by **Tomsik** » August 12th, 2006, 10:40 am

Less MP needed -> green and shorter bar
More -> red and longer bar
Longer bar when it needs less MP is rather inintuitive IMO.

Post by **irrevenant** » August 12th, 2006, 10:50 am

Once this is set up, being able to sort - either by MP or def. would be nifty.

Tomsik wrote:Less MP needed -> green and shorter bar
More -> red and longer bar
Longer bar when it needs less MP is rather inintuitive IMO.

Okay. The intent was that the bar represented speed on the given terrain, but I agree it's misleading next to the movement points (which works the opposite way).

scott · Post by **scott** » August 12th, 2006, 11:06 am

irrevenant wrote:Once this is set up, being able to sort - either by MP or def. would be nifty.

Tomsik wrote:Less MP needed -> green and shorter bar
More -> red and longer bar
Longer bar when it needs less MP is rather inintuitive IMO.
Okay. The intent was that the bar represented speed on the given terrain, but I agree it's misleading next to the movement points (which works the opposite way).

I have to say Tomsik's take is exactly what jumped out to me about it. Make the green bars short and the red long, or at least see what that's like.

zol · Post by **zol** » August 12th, 2006, 11:06 am

Tomsik wrote:Longer bar when it needs less MP is rather inintuitive IMO.

I had originally considered making it linear as well, but in general I believe that the graphic should follow a more basic intuition that longer means better.

I look at the chart to find out what a unit is good at, and these are what should stick out. If I need numerical values rather than 'goodness' values, then I am probably doing calculations anyway rather than just getting the general idea.

Note also that taking the inverse emphasises differences at the fast end where they usually matter. At the other end, I don't care so much; slow is just slow.

The other issue is how to represent infinite ('99') cost. If it is no use to the unit, I'd rather leave it blank (along with its defence in that case).

edit: but seeing as people want examples of both...

Post by **irrevenant** » August 12th, 2006, 11:41 am

Personally I find the 2-directional bars confusing. I think I'd find it clearer if there was a separate set of bars next to the Defence percentages.

Dragon Master · Post by **Dragon Master** » August 12th, 2006, 11:51 am

Irreverant is right. I also don't really like the terrain pictures, they don't accurately show the terrain IMO.

zol · Post by **zol** » August 12th, 2006, 12:18 pm