I just saw the new terrain statistics of the update for the normal servers. I think they look torrible I really liked the old one with the pictures and the dots representig thechanges in strenght and defense. Couldn't you just have merged the two? Just added the new information to the old one? (And maybe explained the dot's a bit better?) But now it just looks so bad

and also doesn't feel right because it seems like details got missing 

Sme goes for al the statistics (also for units)

Yeah, I, too, don't know actualy what was that change for. I bet it's more confusing for new players, for the old ones too.

The interface with the dots just seemer more natural and normal und richer for tweaking. Now it's so blunt and ugly... It would be so great if you took the old interface for that and then jsut added these categorys "good" "bad" "not possible" to that box.It would be a bit bigger BUT would look nice, be rich of detail AND very understandable for all the new players. 

I think it is because the new units have individual powers that would take too much time to load with the old inspector.

Yeah, there's been a lot said about the new inspector since its inception but the developers have never chimed back about it. I think this is one of those things where we just have to deal with it.

But I'll give it one more try again. I don't know who's working on the interface, but please bring some unison between the old inspector and the new inspector. With the inspector as it is, it is not that functional. I mean, if you want some ideas on how to do such a thing, we can pool our brains as a group and we can come up with something that will fit.

There is no guarantee that any suggestion will make it but we will certainly apprecciate any inspector mock ups. It can only help to get it right!

How about giving players the option to choose how their screen looks? I've mentioned this a couple of time (and I'll keep at it), but I'd love to be able to choose inspector styles, locations, colors, sizes, etc. Come on, give us our Web 2.0 gooey goodness.

Wouldn't something realy complicated scare off new users?

I invited a few ppl on the old version, and they took a loooong time to figure it out as it is

I just thought that weewar is a game with a very special visual look and feeling and that this got lost with the new patch and should be restored... I'm not counting on it to be implemented or anything. Just telling you what I think. When you read it I already got to my goal. The devs should know what the players think so they can think about it in further releases.

Old version hard to figure it out? But the new one didn't really make it easyer.. 

I don't understand why I can't see unit stats anymore. This is high on my list of annoyances introduced over the weekend. I know that some units were tweaked to balance the game. That is good. But, I think the rules should be well publicized. I feel like the rule book was changed, and then made classified.

I'm also REALLY missing the stats above the chat area. Please bring it back

I'm currently running several tests on the new units to figure out what their stats are. As soon as I figure everything out I'll update the wiki unless the devs would like to keep this info hidden (*shrug*). Let me know before I finish my research if you don't want your secrets revealed!

Here's one thing I can tell you for sure about the Battleship, it has 8 attack on vehicles, 8 attack on infantry, and 8 armor. Completely maxed out in stats on everything! INSANE!

Does anybody have a picture of the old inspector? I would want to use it to try to mockup a better inspector.

How about Advance Wars, how does that game display stats? I'll look around to see if can't do better. 

Yeah I have a pic... but sadly without anything in it.. so only the outlines:

Yeah, that's tons better ... bring the old stats pack back

ive got a new inspector concept in the works, i've been putting it through usability.

How are you doing that ... do you have a test lab with real users playing weewar?

If so, I'd like to be a user

i dont have a test server...i'm doing this the oldschool way.

paper prototyping

Sweet!

im going to go back and your visual suggestion, i had some thing different  but along the same functionality

Thanks Chrigi. I'm going to try to work on a concept to see if it will work. And oh yeah, could you change this topic title to "New Inspector" or something like that.

when you tell me how I can change the topic title to something more accurate

There should be a little icon next to "Link to this topic" for the creator of the thread and you can click on that to change the topic title.

I was just looking through my skitch history and found an even better picture of the old inspector.... with at least a little bit more of stuff in it:

Here are some of the thoughts we had concerning the new inspector:

- The new units brought along new unit classes. Previously we had only Troopers and Tanks/Mechanized units. Now we have Ships, Subs, Aircrafts and other classes of units that have an impact on the attackpower a given unit has. Imagine a list of all that classes for attack strength, defensive values and terrain effects. This would be very long. We had the feeling that the old inspector was already a bit to complicated for newbee players. 

- We think that the inspector has to answer two questions: What are the units strengthes? And: What are a units weaknesses?  This leads to conclusions about how a unit is used best. For newbee players these questions are answered fairly straight forward. 

- For all the more advanced playes there will be more information. We have not yet decided how we will present the information but one way could be to have an extended  wiki section.

Ok, my ideas not only for a new inspector but for the left hand user menu. The menu has two new features ideas listed in several discussions through tangler.

• Player online status - green arrows, blue background indicates player turn
  
• Public/Team chat - chat window height has been double
  

I tried to base the menu on all feedback I've read for the past two weeks.  I appreciate any feedback on how I can tweak this.

1. Game Title
2. Email Turn Notification (only visible when its not your turn)
3. Terrain/Unit Inspector
4. Player List
5. Chat Box
6. Time Limit Box
7. Replay Controls

User menu A -  is the  small  menu describe above. This one has a terrain inspector with unit movement modifiers.

User menu B -  Terrain inspector is reduced to the text version of the current system. In my opinion, I feel that terrain modifiers should be hidden. This allows for user exploration of the game, and reduces the height of the menu.

Wow madmike, nice work! I especially like the mini tabs on the chat window for teams. Even though team playing is not a feature yet, I hope ths sells the devs on it. Speaking of mini-tabs, it might be nice to also add this mini-tab treatment to the inspector section of your left nav. Tab 1 for Terrain tile stats and tab 2 for unit stats. There could also be a 3rd tab for Terrain stats AND Unit stats ...  kinda like a power user's feature (though this would probably cause a longer page load time). The tabbing for the terrain/units inspector would also help reduce the hieght of all those classes Bert was talking about.

Now, on super big maps like Luckymustard's "Return of the Earth" map, a full-height left-nav would be helpful while on small maps like Aruba it might be overkill. Maybe adding a preference or option control to the user profile page for choosing which tab in the left nav would be open as the default (Tab 1, 2 or 3)? Perhaps a simple radio button control to chose between "NooB", "I just do this for the chicks", or "Power Pro" (and a short description as to what these mean in reference to the interface).

Oh, and what's the "Special:" section at the bottom of the inspector all about? 

Also, how come you didn't include the player's turn ping stuff talked about in the other threads??? That was cool stuff with lots of good feedback from the group.

Otherwise, I like you're work, you're pretty good at the UI stuff, will you be my friend? 

Thanks ratio. One thing I had concepted up, was having titles for each box("Player list, chat, etc...). On this title bar would be a minimize icon. This will allow you to mimimize(not close it) the box to just the title to decrease height.  Special is for any information particular to that unit. For example:

Sub Special:  Can only be attack by destoyers and other subs.

Ping is a functionality that I feel is out scope with the current weewar implementation. I try to reuse everything currently available in weewar. Chat is functional, all that is needed is a team mode, and an extra chat box. does that make sense?

Ooooh, I like tabs with icons idea ... that could be very nice (got a visual). As for the ping thing, yeah, you're right ... "keep it in scope, smart guy"

That's awesome work madmike! All perfect ideas to make Weewar that much better. I'd love to test all of that if the devs decide to bring it to the battlefront.

Are grids not the best? I'm a big fam, it makes things so flexible and easy to do stuff like this.

Yeah, great stuff madmike, You must have spent even more time online than I expected you yesterday:p There's tree terrain icon and inspector says it is plain tile btw.:p

Wiki articles are great to research soething or learn more about WeeWar but unit strength should be visible within the game so that you can easely see how and what a turn will change and this was very clear with the old design. I understand that for beginners the new way of displaying it is by far the best way but for everyone who wants to play a little bit more tactical and cares about the details it just seems like it's not enough there...

madmike... again you did a GREAT job this is exactly how I pictured how it should look like (or at least somewhat like this). Perfect !! The only thing I could add is that Boxes 6 and 7 could also be below the map and not in the sidebar because they are not so important and you have to scroll anyway to see them... Now only the timestamp feature for the chat is missing in this and then it really is... the way to go (Design A)

Thanks All for the feedback.

Chrigi, 6 and 7 are on the side bar and not below the map because with large maps, in the current weewar system, have scrollbars. By moving information away from below the map, you can then show the whole map. This also allows for browser scrollbars to be used for scrolling, instead of inline <div>s. Test case: During a game minimize your browser to less then 800x600. You will have scrollbars for the map and the browser.

I totally agree with the comment, "The rules were changed and then made classified."  It's very frustrating.  I feel like my playing now is trial, error and guess instead of thinking strategy through.

cereal!!!!cereal!!!!!!

The inspector itself seems to be an issue of subordinate importance.  The real issue is disclosure of unit specs, terrain specs, and combat formulae.  The players need to hear from the devs "We only want to disclose 'this much' info, and here is why we want to hide the rest."

The way Wesnoth works is you can get a moderate amount of info which fits in a tight space when you hover over or select a unit.  For more detailed info, you can click on an Info or Help button, which brings up a popup (or fullscreen) which gives lots and lots of data, for those times when you want to research in depth while you strategize about your next move.

So, my suggestion is to give some critical data in the inspector (you can save screen real estate by simply using numbers instead of graphics), then give more data (preferably full disclosure, if you please) on units, terrain and formula when you click a button.

Some other things to think about: I think a satisfactory degree of disclosure would be had when players can learn enough about the game to exactly reproduce it using pencils, paper and a random number generator (such as dice or a computer).  If players can't do this, is that right?

Something else brought up in another thread: It would be like trying a new chess-like game, except you are not told exactly how each piece moves.  Or what exactly the effects are when one piece attacks another piece.

Thanks madmike for the explanation.

@Pistos: Till nw the devs only said they changed it because the beginners had it quite difficult for figuring out how the stats of the units changed and how it all worked with strength or defense and that because of the many new classes it would have got quite cluttered.

Popups: I hate them... For such detailed infos (lots and lots of data) the wiki would be the best place. Because in the wiki you can work out your strategy but in the game you just need a moderate amount of detail so you can base your choices on them and can see weather they fit with your strategy or not.

If i remember correctly popups did not work in the early versions of weewar, but I do agree with pistos, certain details should not be expose. That is why I made one version without Terrain movement modifiers.

Pistos's summary of the problem is exactly what I have been thinking. We NEED the info, but a lot of it could be put in a different place than the inspector. It would be nice to have a detailed "unit and terrain" tab in your HQ. All that you would have to do is click on it and it would bring you to a page of stats.

Madmike, I love your mockups, but if the inspector is going to be that detailed, it would be nice to include the terrain's effect on unit attack and defense. I'll see if I can fit that in somewhere....

Chrigi: Wiki, tab, popup, PDF, PDA file, printout, mailorder, on the side of the goodyear blimp... doesn't matter to me.  As long as we can get at the info somehow to do full research on stuff.  Well, okay, maybe not on the blimp.

I was just playing my turns tonight, and it really sunk in just how LITTLE I know about the units now.   So severe is my lack of information that I often found myself playing defensively because I simply do NOT know whether a certain maneouver is worth the risk or not.  Trial and error is not the way the info should be discovered, IMO.

I feel just unit info is good, and terrain effects is too much. I feel the movement and range is covered when you select a unit , and the unaccessible tiles are grayed out. One other thing you could do, is change the unit stats based on the terrain it is currently in. I was making a concept of it but i have not finished. ill post it in a bit.

Madmike, the unit stats do change based on the terrain. I know trooper defense and attack are improved in forest for example.

Here is your previous mockup with the terrain's effect on unit attack and defense added (by way of little pluses incased in hexagons)

 

I have something similar.

I also don't really care about the terrain effects in numbers or just a nice sentence like in the mockup.

I suggested the wiki rather than a popup because when I'm developing my strategy and thinking about which units I like I want to do this in peace and with as much time as I want and with all the info available. But if it's a popup in the game you only have the unfo about hte things you see and are also under time pressure.

First, I favor full disclosure of the games workings.  That's what makes a fun strategy game, when you can think and make reasonable decisions.  The complexity emerges from the number of possible moves.

Second, I favor having the inspector give as much data as possible, in a quantitative form.

i think Mike's idea for the inspector is awesome, except the question would be how expandable it could be as more unit types are added

I think weewar covers the most typical units in modern combat. I use the small gray icon(attack row) to represent the unit type. This is why it is located in ( ) after the unit name.

• Trooper
• Vehicle (Mechanized)
• Air
• Naval

Do only way I see this unit types expanding is with subtypes like the following.

Vehicle

• Tracked
• Wheeled
• Hoover
• Walker - for warmech..lol

Warmech - What other types do you think there would be?

Mike, it's possible that as the new units mature in balancing, that we see more arche-types for units, like

- Hovercraft branching off as their own type instead of remaining "trooper" types.

- Different Air classes, like one for helicopters and one for planes

- Different Sea classes, like one for sub's, one for heavy ships, and one for light ships

- Different ground classes, like a unique class for artillery or unique class for fast movers (raiders and AA)

- The WarMech class for those INVINCIBLE vehicles from the future

Anyway, some of these may be considered a bit of a stretch but I think it's something to think about.

I still really like your idea for the new interface.




 

How strong the Subclasses differ from the normal classes we will see but as long as there is no terrain data you can simply use the top-class icon and change the stats. I mean it really doesn't matter if you have a tank icon for your raider or not... just the meaning and the stats matter. If the terrain data is available then it would get a bit more complicated because they are unittype based and therefore subtypes could matter.

I probably went overboard with the possibilities there, but I do think that eventually something that should be addressed is that there ought to be at least three different types of damage for human and mechanised units that apply to air, sea, and ground units.

- Soft (troopers, most artillery, hovercraft,  maybe Submarines, Helicopters)

- Armoured (tanks, battleships, Destroyers, Bomber Aircraft)

- Fast ( Raiders, Assault Artillery, speedboats, maybe Submarines, Fighter Aircraft)

The point is that there is a kind of defense in a unit that has a lot of speed in that you can't hit a target you can't acquire, and therefore a big honkin' Berzerker should have an easier time (and better attack stats) attacking a Tank or Heavy Tank than it would picking off a Raider who is zipping around it.  If an artillery piece attacks a group of slow tanks or soft human troopers, it should have a much easier time destroying those than it does a bunch of Raiders that can move out of the target zone and change direction quickly if you can imagine them being attacked.

Anyway, these three kinds of attack stats could apply to all units, but there could also be the capability mechanic which is already in play.  A L-Trooper may have good stats versus soft targets like a helicopter, but the game wouldn't allow him to attack (like the "Off LImits" section of the inspector would say).

I had some free time and I had some ideas for the inspector so I drew them up in paint lol.

http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l174/Jojohsu82/Grid.jpg

yey Paint

woa... now it's getting really complex... hmmm... lemme see... hmmm... green means good. ok. red bad. ok. what's blue doing  there? Sorry I don't really et your drawing. Could you explain?

@WarMech

hehe I can almost see the raider zapping in ZickZack round the Berserk with the drivers highly consentrated... and the Berserk Pilots just think: "WTF O.o" - and then they use their über-canon to desintegrate the whole area around them... bye bye raider

madmike: I don't agree that there is enough terrain info.  Sure you can click on a unit to see how far it can go *in that turn*, but I still have no solid idea about how far I can go in two turns, or three, etc.  I can't strategize whether I want to begin moving my unit to some destination 10 or 12 hexes away.

I was about to say I like the current inspecter, but mad mikes proposal looks amazing

I do agree with not enough in the terrain inspecter however