[interface] Option to sort units by 'usage'

[em3]

There was some feedback after recent development version that alphabetically sorting order for units in recruitment dialog prevents a faction creator from grouping units freely. I do understand the elegant simplicity of sorting by string comparison of translated name. Still, I can sympathize with someone who wants the units in recruitment list to be ordered... reasonably (for lack of better word).

I propose to add an option to sort the unit list by 'usage' field of unit type.

I am aware, that the usage is designed solely to be used by AI and should not really be visible to player. On the other hand, using it could make a unit list look more coherent.

This change would require some way to enable sorting by usage mode, either through program option, or an additional widget somewhere in the recruitment dialog, which could be troublesome, as I recall.

Are there more people who think this could improve usability of recruitment dialog?

[Iris]

I think the player should be able to sort the Recruit dialog by more standard criteria like in the Recall dialog, or possibly a broader set of new criteria. However, we don’t have any developers willing to hack into GUI1 dialogs like that at the moment and converting it to GUI2 is far from a trivial task, and one may want to use a new design (hopefully made/reviewed by a UI design expert, which we don’t have) while at it.

Do note though, that Wesnoth’s UI design has always aimed for simplicity and ease of use, not featurefulness.

[Madlok]

Sorting by cost would be fine for me.

[PapaSmurfReloaded]

I agree that content makers should have the possibility to arrange the recruit list somehow.

Before it was possible to do it by organizing the units ID alphabetically, which naturally would not be seen by the player, just by the developer or anyone curious peeking in the cfg files.

However, for some reason I still don't quite grasp, it was decided that should be changed and since 1.9.8 units in the recruit window are arranged depending alphabetically using their names as parameter(as opposed to ID as it was before).

My 18th Century Era happened to have all its units arranged by their type Infantry/Artillery/Cavalry/Explorer/Naval to make the recruit dialogue more comfortable to players.

Custom order sorted alphabetically by ID(before):

Spoiler:

Sorted alphabetically by Unit Type name(now):

Spoiler:

In order to make it more comfortable and better looking for players(1) I sorted them by changing the era units ID(2) but that ended in 1.9.8. and now they are sorted alphabetically following their unit type names.

Spoiler:

1-I don't think anybody being serious can actually say the custom order is not better than the alphabetical order. Both aesthetically and as a way to find units quicker, particularly commonly used ones.
2-For what I was treated like a devil worshipper who uses dirty invisible hacks and whatnot.

[Iris]

Again, I’d like to emphasize the need for the player to have control over how Wesnoth displays information to them. It should not be the content makers’ responsibility to decide for the player here, the recruit dialog being a fairly crucial part of the UI that should behave consistently across scenarios and campaigns.

The sole idea of letting coders organize the list according to criteria the player cannot even see is bad design. Also note that in good coding style unit type or single unit ids should match the English names as closely as possible given the engine’s limitations (i.e. hyphens in unit type ids caused the game to crash at one point) or the possibility of campaign-specific variations of existing mainline units.

[SigurdFireDragon]

I think the player should be able to sort the Recruit dialog by more standard criteria like in the Recall dialog, or possibly a broader set of new criteria.

Continuing with this, I'd say that it would be good idea to expand Recruit to sorting to at least Type, Level, & Cost; as this would make it more friendly to larger recruit lists, like those present in the AoH era, and the above mentioned 18th Centruy Era.

As for what else might be appropriate, usage might be interesting, as it would allow for dividing recruit options by customizations like 18thCE's Infantry/Artillery/Cavalry/Explorer/Naval.

At the same time, it might help newer players grasp the game better by associating a typical usage with the unit. For example, a player might see a situation in the game where they'd like to recruit some 'archer' units to make ranged attacks; and if they are playing Undead, see that Dark Adpets and Skeleton Archers are both of the 'archer' type.

Usage could be made to fit the role by adding a companion key for translatable strings. In addtion, there could be help entries with some descripitions of usages used in core, i.e. scout - "A unit that is usally faster than others avaialble to recruit, useful for quickly capturing villages and getting a view of the map when fog or shroud is on."

[Insinuator]

At the same time, it might help newer players grasp the game better by associating a typical usage with the unit. For example, a player might see a situation in the game where they'd like to recruit some 'archer' units to make ranged attacks; and if they are playing Undead, see that Dark Adpets and Skeleton Archers are both of the 'archer' type.

I'm certainly not against greater flexibility in sorting methods, but I'd like to object to this particular point. I've recently been training a sleugh of new players to Wesnoth. There are many things that have been challenging to them during the learning curve: Time of Day impact, effective use of Zones of Control, building effective defensive lines, to name a few. However, one thing that they have all been able to pick up quickly is choosing the right units to use. There are only really two types of attacks in Wesnoth: Ranged & Melee. These new players have all quickly seen the difference between them, with very little guidance needed. I do not think it is necessary to spell it out so definitely for the player. And that leads me to my second point.

Who is to say what category a unit falls into? For instance, a Ghost might be reasonably considered a "Scout" unit, but Ghosts are much more than that. A Thunderer might be considered an "Archer" unit, but often they are as useful with a melee attack. Now, this is not to say that I don't think units can be divided into categories. For the most part they can, and indeed, the AI recruits them based on their category already! But I think lumping units into narrow categories as part of the UI stiltifies the game. I fear it might lead a new player into a more rigid pattern of recruitment, lessening the chances of them learning and enjoying a whole new type of strategy in their gameplay.

[Caphriel]

To extend what Insinuator said, by categorizing them together, the significant distinction between the skeleton archer and dark adept would be presented as somewhat less by the UI. New players might be mislead into thinking that some units are more interchangeable than they really are.