[0.71.1] UI Considerations - avoid ambiguity

from GalCiv3 Forums

I realize its still a long road to public release, and perhaps there are higher priorities than a polished UI, but I would like to at least suggest some food to thought to approaching judging whether its good or not for release prior to it actually being released.  Ambiguity, confusion and/or uncertainty due to lack of clarity with presented controls or information I think can steepen the learning curve for a game.  An element of the current UI I would point to as an example where this occurs is in galaxy setup -- under the top section of 'Star Systems,' there are four options:  'Star Frequency,' 'Planet Frequency,' 'Habitable Planet Frequency' and 'Extreme Planet Frequency.'  Most of us old hat players would be familiar with the gist of these from GC2, but -- as with GC2 -- there is some lack of clarity here.  It took awhile of creating new games (not just time playing them, of course, specifically with the setup, an iteration of playing is required to get the hang) that Star Frequency is how frequently stars appear -- simple enough -- and, implicitly, the actual number of stars will vary by this by the map size selected.  So far, so good ... but with the three different planet setup controls, things are not quite so clear.

They could be interpreted to mean there's some total pool of planets, and each of the three categories are different categories -- Habitable Planet Frequency, Planet Frequency, and Extreme Planet Frequency; that is, 'Planet Frequency' in this interpretation which is valid due to UI ambiguity is simply the number of planets that are neither Habitable nor Extreme, or -- in other words -- 'dead planets' that are, by and large, utterly useless.

Ambiguously, it could also be interpreted as 'Planet Frequency' representing the total frequency of planets around stars, 'Habitable' representing the proportion of planets that fall into the Habitable category, Extreme into its category, and some leftover amount hidden with no UI control nor even display between the two options to be those dead planets.

After playing a number of games, a player will learn them (or, again, 'old hat' players from GC2 might remember and presume GC3 uses the same definitions behind the controls as GC2) -- but until it happens, its an example of UI ambiguity that steepens the learning curve and could add to the learning curve frustration for first-time-ever-players (those whom have never played the game before, nor any of the previous iterations).

My point with this post is not to ask about what these individual controls mean to get an answer, since I infer that from GC2 which had, unfortunately, similar ambiguity, but to point out that however obvious it might be to the GC3 design team what they meant with UI elements such as these, they are ambiguous from an objective standpoint, and that ambiguity might lead some first time players to giving up in frustration, which in turn means negative reviews for the game and might steer them away from being repeat Stardock customers.

Nothing can completely stop folk from having a negative experience, of course -- some folk might be oblivious to what a TBS is and think anything 'space strategy game' = RTS = Starcraft and find themselves bored with a TBS or somesuch, but there's a great deal of flux that I think taking a brand new customer's POV to evaluating something can make a difference, and push at least some customer reviews from negative to positive.  I hope each and every UI element gets looked at from this perspective.

Thanks for considering my thoughts!

2,181 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

While I can't imagine a player quitting in frustration because they are unclear on what exactly these settings mean, more tool-tips are always appreciated. Even better would be a graphical representation that changes as you adjust the settings.

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting peregrine23, reply 1

While I can't imagine a player quitting in frustration because they are unclear on what exactly these settings mean, more tool-tips are always appreciated. Even better would be a graphical representation that changes as you adjust the settings.
End of peregrine23's quote

 

Its a general suggestion/complaint to avoid ambiguities like this.  Where there's this one, there are probably more, each would add to the learning curve of the game and frustration for new players is my point/argument.  Organizing it to clarify what the 'union set' conjunction is would make it a cinch for a new player to understand, not just the galaxy setup dialog box, but others like it, too.

Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

another example would be production vs manufacturing

while these are 2 different values that affect the game differently i have seen production pop up in ideology choices where manufacturing was the bonus provided, i accept that this is more of a typo then an ambiguity

however gc2 had a big problem of mixing up words there was one that used to bug me particularly on one of the tile bonus's i think it was called approval but the bonus read something like 'any improvement on this tile boosts the approval of anyone who visits it' and i could never tell if that meant influence or moral bonus

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I always took the planet appearance to mean all planets. You are saying that this doesn't affect the number of habital snd extreme planets.

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting androshalforc, reply 3

another example would be production vs manufacturing
End of androshalforc's quote

Yeah, I suggested a while ago that they change production to manpower or something else that is both more suggestive of what does and more clearly delineates it from manufacturing.

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 4

I always took the planet appearance to mean all planets. You are saying that this doesn't affect the number of habital snd extreme planets.
End of admiralWillyWilber's quote

 

I am saying it is ambiguous -- the way the UI is setup, it isn't clear.  In this specific case, they should at least re-organize the dialog box, put an outer outline box with the Planet Frequency slider (if they stay with a slider) as the 'title' for it, and the Habitable vs. Extreme as visually subset to that (or maybe even a triangular slider, like the Econ vs. Science vs. Production one, but in this case it'd be Habitable vs. Extreme vs. Dead).  The way the slider controls are labelled and organized presently, it is very unclear, and that can be frustrating for someone new trying to set up the game to be the way they want.

There is nothing on the UI indicating that Planet Frequency vs. Habitable vs. Extreme relate as ratios (Habitable and Extreme populating out of the overall Planet Frequency), or that there's another planet type that's hidden and is leftover from what Habitable or Extreme don't consume from the overall Planet Frequency population (dead planets).

 

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Another example would be the current tech descriptors; several techs have enhancements that you can research.  From their descriptions, they would seem implicitly to apply to all the techs (in other words, the Maintenance -10% would apply to all research facilities, not just the ones these enhancers are attached to), but that is not really clear ... it leads to the conundrum of when to research an enhancement vs. when to upgrade.  Its another example of the ambiguity I mentioned (actually its a lot of them, if one considers all the techs with enhancements).

 

Reply #8 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I was with you on the first one, but I think it's pretty clear that sustainable research reduces maintenance of all research improvements. I have no idea what would give you the impression that it would only work for research institutes.