Color change of the movement orb

[fabi]

Okay, overwriting the game config from out of the preferences file seems not to be supported.

You can make the changes directly in the game_config.cfg file, found in the data directory.

This means the need to adjust it with every new version of Wesnoth.

I will work on improving the situation.

[Mabuse]

i also would suggest to be careful changing things that worked well for about ... 10 years?

why do enemies have anyway an orb in the new version? urgent need for that? is there a need for that at all?
this is for me the most clear sign to distuingisch enemies from own units.

after all enemies as well as own and allied units can have the same team-color, but the orbs are the hardcoded difference.

about the colors:
-------------------
of course you can always find pro's and cons for about EVERY color.

i can also suggest using red-color for unmoved units since its a warning color and shoudl remind the player of not forgetting that units to move.

a green light woud indicate that the unit has been moved and everything is fine with it.

(however, i case enemies HAVE to have orbs: than black for moved units may be better, but my main suggestion is not to give enemies orbs at all)



important for me is that there is more than a difference about th orb-color to distuingish friendly from enemy units. no orb for enemies just has worked well for 10 years now. i would suggest not to change that.

[fabi]

why do enemies have anyway an orb in the new version? urgent need for that? is there a need for that at all?
this is for me the most clear sign to distinguish enemies from own units.

Please have a look at the icons below the minimap in the current dev version.

The little button below which tooltip shows "Toggle minimap color coding".

It switches between the classic color encoding displaying units in the color of their sides and a new one.
The classic side/team color coding is useful, no doubt, thus the button (whose function can also be bound to a hotkey) to switch between them.

Depending on the situation a different color coding seems also useful for me.
When I want to have a quick overview about what happens where in huge scenarios,
it doesn't matter that much (to me) to which side a unit belongs.

It is not completely irrelevant but I also like to have a mode that shows me all enemies in one color and all allies in one color.
In that mode I can quickly see at a first glance towards the minimap how the war is going.

The old encoding needs some translation (done in the brain).
I need to remember which colors are enemies and which are allies.
For me that isn't that easy, the extra overhead makes the minimap unit display pretty much useless (for me) for that purpose.

While developing the mp version of LoW (which features up to 6 player controlled sides + allies + enemies) this was especially a problem.

Another features that matter for me is a way to see where on the map I already moved my units and where the fresh ones are.

Just using the orb's color for the minimap encoding as well seemed a good idea to me.
This way there is no need to define a third color scheme (sides/orbs/minimap) but just keep it with two.

It also makes explaining how the new encoding works easy:
It displays the units in the color of their orbs.

I hope this explains why I introduced an orb for the enemy units.
There was already some feedback from players calling the new minimap mode useful.

The color used for the enemy orb does not necessarily need to be the red one.
But red seemed to be the best choice, regarding that it is a natural sign for danger and also used by most other games for that purpose.

Regards,
Fabi

[Turuk]

why do enemies have anyway an orb in the new version? urgent need for that? is there a need for that at all?
this is for me the most clear sign to distinguish enemies from own units.

The color used for the enemy orb does not necessarily need to be the red one.
But red seemed to be the best choice, regarding that it is a natural sign for danger and also used by most other games for that purpose.

Regarding Mabuse's point on the orbs, isn't it easier for your brain to not even have to process the color of the orb, just that it doesn't have an orb so it must be an enemy? Just because other games use indicators for enemies does not necessarily mean it's the most applicable here. The ellipses under a unit indicate its side, the lak of orb also indicates it is an enemy, and so this would change the redundancy.

The mini-map color changes make more sense.

[fabi]

Regarding Mabuse's point on the orbs, isn't it easier for your brain to not even have to process the color of the orb, just that it doesn't have an orb so it must be an enemy? Just because other games use indicators for enemies does not necessarily mean it's the most applicable here. The ellipses under a unit indicate its side, the lak of orb also indicates it is an enemy, and so this would change the redundancy.

The mini-map color changes make more sense.

Well, I can only speak for myself.
It happens to me from time to time that I miss an enemy orbless unit between my frontline, especially when the enemy uses the same unit set and there are also allied units around (thus several different side/team colors are involved).

edit:

Also, when keeping the old color scheme for orbs (red: moved, enemy: none) and displaying the enemy in the minimap red, what color to use for the moved ones in the map?

This means at least that we have 3 instead of 2 color schemes around making it more complicated.

[Turuk]

The map showing the side color of the unit was most preferable, particularly on maps where you are having to balance multiple enemies. The lack of distinction means the player has to potentially scroll around more.

Also, when keeping the old color scheme for orbs (red: moved, enemy: none) and displaying the enemy in the minimap red, what color to use for the moved ones in the map?

This means at least that we have 3 instead of 2 color schemes around making it more complicated.

Part of this issue comes from trying to cram so much information into a small map screen, similar to how unit alignment was discarded in favor of just the bonus due to 'lack of space' with the new setup. Updates are great, but not at the expense of core functionality/ease of use.

Instead of orbs being movement based in meaning, now they are supposed to show movement and indicate friendly/enemy. That makes things more complicated.

[fabi]

The map showing the side color of the unit was most preferable, particularly on maps where you are having to balance multiple enemies. The lack of distinction means the player has to potentially scroll around more.

What do you mean with "balance multiple enemies"?
Anyway, the old color coding is not gone, and it is easy to switch between them.

Part of this issue comes from trying to cram so much information into a small map screen, similar to how unit alignment was discarded in favor of just the bonus due to 'lack of space' with the new setup. Updates are great, but not at the expense of core functionality/ease of use.

That is another issue.
In the case of the new color coding no old functionality was removed.

Instead of orbs being movement based in meaning, now they are supposed to show movement and indicate friendly/enemy. That makes things more complicated.

What has the blue allied orb to do with movement?
Nothing. It is already an indicator of friendly/enemy.

Thus orbs already are a mixed indicator of both since ages.
Having orbs for enemies as well is only consequent, not complicating anything.

[Turuk]

Thus orbs already are a mixed indicator of both since ages.
Having orbs for enemies as well is only consequent, not complicating anything.

This is true, except with the use of red for enemies. Why not leave the existing orb set-up untouched and use black for enemies? Given that it's primarily focus on movement (allies as well I know) but this way the orb colors are not changing regarding movement.

Red being used in other games is all well and good, but the green, yellow, red set-up already has a clearly defined purpose in Wesnoth. Black can indicate an enemy just as well as blue serves to indicate allies.

[fabi]

Thus orbs already are a mixed indicator of both since ages.
Having orbs for enemies as well is only consequent, not complicating anything.

This is true, except with the use of red for enemies. Why not leave the existing orb set-up untouched and use black for enemies? Given that it's primarily focus on movement (allies as well I know) but this way the orb colors are not changing regarding movement.

Red being used in other games is all well and good, but the green, yellow, red set-up already has a clearly defined purpose in Wesnoth. Black can indicate an enemy just as well as blue serves to indicate allies.

Yes, black was my first choice as well.
I tried it out.
But it didn't work well on dark terrain.

While red works, even above lava.

[Turuk]

Hmm. Was it a pure black? What about some sort of lighter black, more towards grey? I'm just trying thinking of colors that don't mess with the existing scheme. A border around the black orb might help it stand out as well.

[fabi]

I am not only talking about the orb on the map but also about the unit dot on the minimap.

In general dark (or saturated, I am not sure about the right words must ask LordBob) colors don't work well for such things.

Edit: Note that the black problem is also true for the current "already moved" orb/minimap dot.

But it is not so important in case of already moved units.
Still I want to find a better solution for that as well.

Anyway, already moved units are the ones which need the least attention.
And they were marked by the color which draws the most.

I call this is a bug, an ancient one,
but having a bug around for 10 years does not mean it is a feature now.

[Turuk]

In my opinion this is a bug, an ancient one,
but having a bug around for 10 years does not mean it is a feature now.

That comes back to my earlier point of cramming so much functionality into the mini-map. It's only an issue using dark colors because now movement for friendly units will be displayed on the mini-map as well.

That is a massive assumption being made, that because you don't like the way something is done, it must be a bug that needs to be fixed, irregardless of the fact that no one saw it as such in a decade. All of these recent changes to how the game plays and operates seem to be based on your subjective opinion; given the feedback from other users, they don't always agree and it does not seem that any general consensus was reached regarding these changes, but rather they were just implemented as the default for the community to deal with on their own.



I am not against new/different methods being implemented, but I take issue with these being made the default without substantial UAT (user-assisted testing).

[fabi]

In my opinion this is a bug, an ancient one,
but having a bug around for 10 years does not mean it is a feature now.

That comes back to my earlier point of cramming so much functionality into the mini-map. It's only an issue using dark colors because now movement for friendly units will be displayed on the mini-map as well.

That is a massive assumption being made, that because you don't like the way something is done, it must be a bug that needs to be fixed, irregardless of the fact that no one saw it as such in a decade. All of these recent changes to how the game plays and operates seem to be based on your subjective opinion; given the feedback from other users, they don't always agree and it does not seem that any general consensus was reached regarding these changes, but rather they were just implemented as the default for the community to deal with on their own.

I am not against new/different methods to be implemented, but I take issue with these being made the default without substantial UAT.

Regardless of any new features, using red to mark moved units (which don't need much attention any more) is a fault.

This is not based on my subjective feeling or opinion,
it is a scientific fact.

Just show Wesnoth 1.10 to anyone who learned how to design UIs properly.
I have done so.
There is the possibility to study "Medieninformatik" at my university.
That is a mixture between computer science and designing.
They learn how to make Websites and design GUIs and other stuff properly.

Sadly we don't have a developer with those skills on our team.

The friend I have asked to have a look at our UI told me:
"Nice game but the UI is designed fundamentally wrong."

Wesnoth is not successful because of its UI but in spite of.

Those who are complaining about the change now,
will also adapt quickly and do better with colors chosen with some basic design laws in mind regardless of their current disaffirmation.

At the end most human brains work the same and you can't change that no matter how many people participate in a poll or just state their current dislike.
Well, with genetic manipulation, maybe.

No software project with a sane leadership will disregard design principles which have proven to be sane,
neither should we.

edit: There were also a couple of people wanting the old Drake unit images back, remember?
There will nearly always be a certain amount of people wanting the old state back after a change, no matter how sane it is.

[Turuk]

This is the second time that you have indicated that anyone who wants the old way is wrong, and that this should be changed because of opinions of your friends to whom you have shown the game.

Are you open to the consideration that your solution may not be the preferred/best method? You have so far not given any validity to the numerous comments (the latest) made about the various changes you have made, you just note that they don't understand that the new set-up is 'simpler' and 'superior' to the current way. At which numerical point does the 'certain amount of people wanting the old way back' become realization that they could represent a majority and not a minority?

[fabi]

This is the second time that you have indicated that anyone who wants the old way is wrong, ...

No one who wants the old way back is wrong.
It is only natural for humans to hang on old rules, way of lives, items or habits.
Last but not least, not every human has the same taste.
And there are also disabled persons (like color blind ones) who have special needs.

I am not an exception myself.
This is why I alway try to keep the stuff configurable, so that people can adjust stuff to their needs.

..., and that this should be changed because of opinions of your friends to whom you have shown the game.

Sorry, my fault. I should not have argumented with an example of a single person I know.
Forget about mentioning a friend, let's stay with the pure scientific argument.

Are you open to the consideration that your solution may not be the preferred/best method?

Sure, just prove me wrong.
I can point you to numerous scientific works about how human perception works and how this knowledge is used in UI design.
Be prepared to have a hard time, the papers are not easy to read/understand and I am used to scientific argumentation.

You have so far not given any validity to the numerous comments (the latest) made about the various changes you have made,

Right, my time is limited and I have spend many of it on the forum answering questions lately.
I will answer to them sooner or later.

you just note that they don't understand that the new set-up is 'simpler' and 'superior' to the current way.

You make it sound like I have told someone a fool. I did not.

At which numerical point does the 'certain amount of people wanting the old way back' become realization that they could represent a majority and not a minority?

I can't answer this question.
edit: I must admit, I have problems to detect the subject in that sentence. Who is the one to realize?