16
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 22th March] UI Colours Templates
« on: April 02, 2017, 01:43:18 PM »
Good luck with the job and the animations!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
17
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 22th March] UI Colours Templates
« on: March 22, 2017, 10:55:36 PM »
That's a neat idea!
18
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 10th March] Internal Comms
« on: March 11, 2017, 04:26:56 PM »
I think that's much clearer that they are tags, and not tabs.
19
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 10th March] Internal Comms
« on: March 11, 2017, 01:04:12 PM »Good call on the Engineering and High Priority tags. Do you think making them darker might help?I think you just need to change the shape, so it doesn't look like a tab. Maybe put them in a round placeholder, rather than the one in the same shape as actual tab heading with the Technician's name and node.
The second is that I didn't want to be putting words into the players mouth, where the reply might be nothing like what I would say.You're right. I was thinking about this, but didn't include it in my post. But you are absolutely right.
I do intend to have a context sensitive request system which will raise Internal Comms messages. For example in Tactical I could click on a Turret and choose the "Increase Power" request, which would generate a message for Engineering to increase power to that Turret. The Engineer would not have the option to increase power automatically, but instead would have quick responses, something like "Yes", "No", "As soon as I can" and "Not possible, sorry".I love this. It offers so much possibilites that it's mind boggling.
One more thing. The message from the Technician has a subject line that starts with "RE:". If I'm not mistaken, you don't need that part, since that's only for the response messages. The "RE:" would exist in the message the Technician receives from the Engineer, but that is not viable to the player.
20
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 10th March] Internal Comms
« on: March 11, 2017, 11:15:04 AM »
The red triangles on the butons now really come into play. Now I see how much your previous decision was correct. Bravo!
The tags Engineering and High Priority look more like tabs, then tags. Unless they really are tabs, you might want to design them in a slightly different way or place them in a different location.
I also love the fact that we have a choice to make, regarding the fix. Gives so much more depth to the game.
Do we see the reply we send to the technician? In this case, if one selects the "Quick Fix", our message could be something like "Just patch the holes and get on with it." Or does the message simply get archived once we select a response? Can we view the messages we've responded to? Can we instruct the technician to do a Complete Fix on something he just did a quick fix earlier, once we have extra time?
What other uses of Internal Comms do you see? Specifically in the Engineer's case. Will there be messages from other consoles, such as requesting power for certain nodes?
The tags Engineering and High Priority look more like tabs, then tags. Unless they really are tabs, you might want to design them in a slightly different way or place them in a different location.
I also love the fact that we have a choice to make, regarding the fix. Gives so much more depth to the game.
Do we see the reply we send to the technician? In this case, if one selects the "Quick Fix", our message could be something like "Just patch the holes and get on with it." Or does the message simply get archived once we select a response? Can we view the messages we've responded to? Can we instruct the technician to do a Complete Fix on something he just did a quick fix earlier, once we have extra time?
What other uses of Internal Comms do you see? Specifically in the Engineer's case. Will there be messages from other consoles, such as requesting power for certain nodes?
21
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 5th March] Modding API
« on: March 05, 2017, 10:07:03 AM »
Awesome news!
I really think the modding aspect is something you should include in the marketing of the game, since it's a phenomenal feature and it might attract additional people who maybe wouldn't play the game otherwise.
I really think the modding aspect is something you should include in the marketing of the game, since it's a phenomenal feature and it might attract additional people who maybe wouldn't play the game otherwise.
22
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 21st February] Engineering Design Updates
« on: February 21, 2017, 11:36:22 AM »
Thanks for clearing it up! 
23
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 21st February] Engineering Design Updates
« on: February 21, 2017, 09:46:29 AM »
Grey, you can see which system is currently selected by the thin yellow border around it. Currently it's the one on the upper right, with the technician in it.
Mark, I'm not really sure if the little triangles serve any purpose, other than to signify what the user can click on. They don't look back, that's true.
I like the shield statuses around the wheel.
I also like the change from "perf." to "damage", next to the graph. Makes it much clearer what the performance means. I've been wondering if it's the rate of fire or damage per hit.
P.S. I think it would be interesting to create a gif or video of the engineering wheel's transformation from it's earliest days to the current version (and onwards).
Mark, I'm not really sure if the little triangles serve any purpose, other than to signify what the user can click on. They don't look back, that's true.
I like the shield statuses around the wheel.
I also like the change from "perf." to "damage", next to the graph. Makes it much clearer what the performance means. I've been wondering if it's the rate of fire or damage per hit.
P.S. I think it would be interesting to create a gif or video of the engineering wheel's transformation from it's earliest days to the current version (and onwards).
24
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 14th February] Engineering Recolor
« on: February 17, 2017, 03:38:51 PM »If it really is too confusing though then switching back to the original blue colour would be the best solution.I wouldn't call it too confusing. I would just say it breaks the rules of design. That's not always a bad idea, but it's such a minor thing here that either way could be fine. Perhaps just something to keep in mind when doing the A/B testing.
I really like the concept of the UI visually changing when in low power. I will have to think about what triggers a low power status though! Maybe one of the Power Presets is specifically for a low power configuration (we could call it "Silent Running"That could be really cool. Maybe even enemies' radar would struggle to pick you up, like stealth mode. Or you simple conserve more power that way, which is useful for travelling across vast regions of space where you don't need to constantly accelerate.
25
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 14th February] Engineering Recolor
« on: February 17, 2017, 03:17:17 PM »
"System status" addition is a great idea.
I prefer the performance graph not to be green, since green, orange and red are feedback colours. If the graph will fade to reddish when the performance output is bad, that would be an additional feedback, but if not, I think it could confuse players since the color scheme is not uniform throughout the screen (meaning that green in other places means good, and here it doesn't mean anything).
I agree with Gray, I don't have a preference over the lighter or darker variant of the wheel itself. But adding the white line around the selected one is a neat feature. Maybe make the border a bit thicker or detailed like a frame that overlaps the blue field of the node?
Quick idea: have the whole screen darken when the ship's power is low.
I prefer the performance graph not to be green, since green, orange and red are feedback colours. If the graph will fade to reddish when the performance output is bad, that would be an additional feedback, but if not, I think it could confuse players since the color scheme is not uniform throughout the screen (meaning that green in other places means good, and here it doesn't mean anything).
I agree with Gray, I don't have a preference over the lighter or darker variant of the wheel itself. But adding the white line around the selected one is a neat feature. Maybe make the border a bit thicker or detailed like a frame that overlaps the blue field of the node?
Quick idea: have the whole screen darken when the ship's power is low.
26
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 10th February] Technician Portraits
« on: February 10, 2017, 03:07:05 PM »
That makes sense.
27
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 10th February] Technician Portraits
« on: February 10, 2017, 02:35:52 PM »
Honestly, I'm not really impressed with the portraits, if they're just a picture. If these portraits actually make appropriate facial expressions and grimaces, then that's excellent. But if they're just icons, you can probably just have someone draw them.
28
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 06th February] Engineering UI (With Video)
« on: February 06, 2017, 09:31:26 PM »
First impression: too many blinking lights.
Second impression, after making the video full-screen: there are not too many blinking lights.
I like it.
The basic info is on the nodes themselves, while detailed info is in the info pane on the left. You only need to look at info on left if you need strict details.
A few questions:
1. Does the red blinking of the nodes mean they are being damaged? The yellow blinking of node's icons mean that they are being used?
2. Operation says Online even if the node is not. Shouldn't it say Offline, then?
3. Operation in yellow means that it's at max energy input?
4. Changing preset displays a big red message. Can you try changing it to a colder color, so it doesn't seem so alarming? Maybe you can use such brief red messages to display other like a node being destroyed.
5. Can you decrease the input of energy into nodes by right-clicking on the lines, like you increase it with left-clicking?
Second impression, after making the video full-screen: there are not too many blinking lights.
I like it.
The basic info is on the nodes themselves, while detailed info is in the info pane on the left. You only need to look at info on left if you need strict details.
A few questions:
1. Does the red blinking of the nodes mean they are being damaged? The yellow blinking of node's icons mean that they are being used?
2. Operation says Online even if the node is not. Shouldn't it say Offline, then?
3. Operation in yellow means that it's at max energy input?
4. Changing preset displays a big red message. Can you try changing it to a colder color, so it doesn't seem so alarming? Maybe you can use such brief red messages to display other like a node being destroyed.
5. Can you decrease the input of energy into nodes by right-clicking on the lines, like you increase it with left-clicking?
29
Development & Discussion / Re: [Progress - 19th January] Flight Physics
« on: January 19, 2017, 11:29:39 PM »
I think you will need to aproximate the flight as close as possible, so with the lowest amount of drag, if any.
Do you interpret other ships not visible with naked eye (anything farther than a few km) as a simple short vector with it's orientation and speed? How many objects does it take for it to become a performance issue?
Do you interpret other ships not visible with naked eye (anything farther than a few km) as a simple short vector with it's orientation and speed? How many objects does it take for it to become a performance issue?
30
Development & Discussion / Re: Checking In
« on: January 12, 2017, 04:34:19 PM »
Always glad to read more details about your progress.