Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Blog Posts => Topic started by: Alex on May 07, 2018, 10:01:20 AM

Title: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 07, 2018, 10:01:20 AM
Blog post here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2018/05/07/revisiting-the-intel-ui/).
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Sarissofoi on May 07, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
Hello there.  :D
I was just thinking how nice it would be to read some blog before getting some sleep.
Yay.
Lucky me.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Robbie Vulcan on May 07, 2018, 10:35:52 AM
All good stuff. Will the brief sensor ping on the map (especially the in-system one) for certain quest locations be more easy to use in this new intel screen? Previously, it was a pain to use the ping, and I don't even remember the exact process of how it's done; it was never clear when you could use the intel screen for that to begin with.

I disagree with the circular icons on the basis that they are completely out of order with the TriPad style (rectangle with clipped corners). I find the stylistic dissonance much more irritating than the icons "not lining up to a grid," which has never even crossed my mind in my time playing. They also appear to be "suffocating" the icons, which have all been designed for use with the square shape, as seen on the left of the screen. They feel messier in the new setup, and much cleaner before, as I see it.

Good luck with further progress.

P.S. Add orbital bombardment (even if it's just a text event) and I will love you forever.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 07, 2018, 10:53:17 AM
Hello there.  :D
I was just thinking how nice it would be to read some blog before getting some sleep.
Yay.
Lucky me.

Well, that worked out :)

All good stuff. Will the brief sensor ping on the map (especially the in-system one) for certain quest locations be more easy to use in this new intel screen? Previously, it was a pain to use the ping, and I don't even remember the exact process of how it's done; it was never clear when you could use the intel screen for that to begin with.

Yeah, it should be smoother. You just select the item in the list and press "S" (or the show-on-map button), and it opens the map on the target location, along with a ping there. As there's an actual button, it should also be more clear that you *can* do this, as you say.

Also, when you just select the item on the list, it centers the intel screen map on it and pings. That's good enough for most cases; you don't need to switch screens or tabs and you can see where the item is located. It's only when you want to see the in-system location that you really want to switch to the map using "S".

I disagree with the circular icons on the basis that they are completely out of order with the TriPad style (rectangle with clipped corners). I find the stylistic dissonance much more irritating than the icons "not lining up to a grid," which has never even crossed my mind in my time playing. They also appear to be "suffocating" the icons, which have all been designed for use with the square shape, as seen on the left of the screen. They feel messier in the new setup, and much cleaner before, as I see it.

Fair enough; we'll just have to disagree :) There's definitely an element of personal preference here.

Good luck with further progress.

Thank you! Welcome to the forum, btw :)

P.S. Add orbital bombardment (even if it's just a text event) and I will love you forever.

That may possibly have several TODO items related to it. Or it may not. No promises, though, but naturally this is something that'd be at least considered.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Robbie Vulcan on May 07, 2018, 11:21:16 AM
Quote
You just select the item in the list and press "S"

Ah, I missed that. Good to hear.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: Robbie Vulcan on Today at 10:35:52 AM
P.S. Add orbital bombardment (even if it's just a text event) and I will love you forever.

That may possibly have several TODO items related to it.

Hooray! It's always been one of my favorite sci-fi mechanics, up there with spinally-mounted railguns. I don't think anybody would ask for Stellaris-tier genocide mechanics, but dropping some reapers or a stellar shade (like the Luddics did with that one planet; you know the one) on the enemy would give a sweet, sweet feeling of late-game power, revenge, and also roleplaying goodness.

(https://kek.gg/i/5DWvB3.png)

Quote
Or it may not. No promises, though

Why must you tease me so?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Wyvern on May 07, 2018, 11:22:40 AM
The first thing that hits me, reading this, is how the tags work.  Yes, it's a definite improvement over the current UI... but when bounty hunting (for an example of one plausible activity), here's what I actually want out of the intel screen:
Show me a map, with fuel range indicators.
On that map, show the location of every bounty that will reward credits (i.e. not just Hegemony-tagged, but all non-hostile factions' tags).
With the remaining duration on the bounty in -days- (not the current intel UI's useless '1 month remaining' that could mean 'you've got 30 days to get out there and have plenty of time' or could mean 'this expires tomorrow and you should just ignore it').
And the ability to click on any of those icons to get the full details of that bounty.
  (Edit: Actually, I'd also like to see bounties that won't award credits in some greyed-out form, because otherwise if you get multiple bounties in the same place you could get a real surprise when you jump in expecting to fight one pirate fleet, and instead get two - one of which won't give you a payout.)

Similarly, for your trade fleet departures, I'd want to be able to tag "all hostile factions" rather than one faction at a time.  (Assuming we can get trade fleet departure info for hostile factions?  Hm... perhaps that's a good use for the old install-a-comm-sniffer action?)
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Robbie Vulcan on May 07, 2018, 12:04:42 PM

With the remaining duration on the bounty in -days- (not the current intel UI's useless '1 month remaining' that could mean 'you've got 30 days to get out there and have plenty of time' or could mean 'this expires tomorrow and you should just ignore it').

Looks like he already fixed that one.
(https://kek.gg/i/3MY2t_.png)

Agree with all your intel goals.

Quote
Assuming we can get trade fleet departure info for hostile factions?  Hm... perhaps that's a good use for the old install-a-comm-sniffer action?

I wonder if comm sniffers will affect the profitability of any civilian fleets from colonies? After all, it's not like they were ever particularly helpful to the player, and Starsector just isn't a good trade game as of current (excepting early-game smuggling, which is awesome). Using the comm sniffers for pirate activity seems like a smart move, as it is exciting, and the reputation penalty isn't that bad (you clearly didn't love the faction anyway if you're attacking their fleets). Also seems like it would maintain its usefulness throughout mid-late game. If you wanted to get really fancy with it, a comm sniffer might be used to manipulate transmissions, luring part of a defense fleet away from a planet , for instance, or perhaps giving special orders to not intercept a ship that happens to have your transponder (it's Hegemony ComSec level 12 business, of course). This would make the comm sniffer a viable, while still a bit risky (eg: the faction finds out about your interference and the opposite effects take place [more security/ actively dispatch patrols to intercept you]) mechanic in both early and late-game scenarios.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 07, 2018, 12:48:53 PM
The first thing that hits me, reading this, is how the tags work.  Yes, it's a definite improvement over the current UI... but when bounty hunting (for an example of one plausible activity), here's what I actually want out of the intel screen:
Show me a map, with fuel range indicators.
On that map, show the location of every bounty that will reward credits (i.e. not just Hegemony-tagged, but all non-hostile factions' tags).
With the remaining duration on the bounty in -days- (not the current intel UI's useless '1 month remaining' that could mean 'you've got 30 days to get out there and have plenty of time' or could mean 'this expires tomorrow and you should just ignore it').
And the ability to click on any of those icons to get the full details of that bounty.
  (Edit: Actually, I'd also like to see bounties that won't award credits in some greyed-out form, because otherwise if you get multiple bounties in the same place you could get a real surprise when you jump in expecting to fight one pirate fleet, and instead get two - one of which won't give you a payout.)

Similarly, for your trade fleet departures, I'd want to be able to tag "all hostile factions" rather than one faction at a time.  (Assuming we can get trade fleet departure info for hostile factions?  Hm... perhaps that's a good use for the old install-a-comm-sniffer action?)

(Related: bounties now pay out etc regardless of faction relationship.)

But, yeah, this is a good point, and I think it can be solved nicely by adding a pair of Hostile/Not Hostile tags. So, there, did that.

For fuel, hmm. I think I can actually work that in - didn't want to put the full-fledged map filter in there, but it really doesn't have to be that. There - something like this (in fact, so much "like" this that it is this):

(https://i.imgur.com/WkNX66E.png) (https://i.imgur.com/WkNX66E.png)

(Click for full-size.)

For your other points, I think the new UI has all of that covered. I mean, if it was a dedicated, specifically-for-bounties UI, it might also show the days remaining on the icon (or it might not, depending on how busy that looked), but with a few allowances for the UI being general-purpose.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Wyvern on May 07, 2018, 02:25:02 PM
For your other points, I think the new UI has all of that covered. I mean, if it was a dedicated, specifically-for-bounties UI, it might also show the days remaining on the icon (or it might not, depending on how busy that looked), but with a few allowances for the UI being general-purpose.
I really can't agree here - the days remaining for a bounty is information that -needs- to be visible on the map, because otherwise I have to click through every icon, see which bounty it matches up to, and then manually ignore entries that are too close to expiring.  Now, this doesn't necessarily need to be presented in text form; a way to filter events by time in addition to tag would work (especially if it combined with travel time so I could filter out "events my fleet cannot possibly get to before they expire"), as could some sort of time display built into the icon (though most of the simple ways of doing that only work if we assume all bounties have the same initial duration).

I'll admit, I'm focusing on bounties here because that's what, in the current game, is the important thing on the intel screen for my playstyle.  However, the same thing applies to any form of time-limited event.  If I'm a trader looking to take advantage of temporary shortfalls, I need to be able to figure out whether I can get there in time.  If I'm a pirate looking at intercepting a trader's convoy, I need to be able to figure out if I have enough time to intercept the fleet.  This is critical information; without it, I have to check through each map icon individually to figure out which ones represent actual opportunities and which ones are just chaff.

The only two cases (of those currently presented) where time isn't a critical factor are missions (where the timer starts ticking when you accept it and thus you won't have ones that are almost-expired cluttering up the map), and hazard beacons (which have no time-relevant data at all, though for these it'd still be nice to be able to mark systems that you know you've cleared; a sort of a 'tag as unimportant' rather than the current 'tag as important' option.)

Speaking of which - what's the sorting criterion for the event list on the left, there?  Time remaining would be a useful option for some event types.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: intrinsic_parity on May 07, 2018, 02:32:37 PM
I would like to be able to see exploration missions and bounties on the same map since I often try to chain multiple different mission types in one expedition. Will selecting 'bounties' and 'exploration' show only events with both the mission and bounty tag? or will it show both missions and bounties? A good alternative might be player-placed markers on the map that persist when switching tags. Or I guess you mentioned the 'important' tag, that could be a work around maybe.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Kyuss11 on May 07, 2018, 03:04:13 PM
I'm not sure if this has been added or already fixed when hovering over a planet on the map. I want to know my relationship of said faction in that sector. When I hover over Corvus,it will show Hedgemony but in order to see if I'm friend or foe I have to go to factions tab. It is a pain do bounce back and forth on these tab since you lose information of what your doing.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Bribe Guntails on May 07, 2018, 03:11:39 PM
That tag-based filter is a definite improvement over the categories used in the current Intel screen.

Can you hide certain tags which can be spoilers until the player encounters them in the world? I'm pretty sure the
Spoiler
Remnants
[close]
are a spoiler for newcomers.

Lastly, is it possible for the map to be functional while the game is unpaused, perhaps with additional time acceleration functions? If the player wants to pass time while keeping appraised of Sector happenings, that would be a way to do it.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Gothars on May 07, 2018, 03:20:08 PM
This is highly relevant to my interests.

No, seriously, I'm loving this. Tag based systems are so wonderful, I wish I could use tags to organize all my real-world stuff, too. And I'm sure that you made it easy to, as you put it, "visualize the spatial relationships between events" is a huge step forward for game flow.

I had my gripes with the Intel tab from the very beginning, but now I finally see me becoming a fan of the design. The only thing I can think of that's still sub-optimal is the separate map. It could probably be rolled completely into the intel UI. Oh, well.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Gothars on May 07, 2018, 04:14:23 PM
I would like to be able to see exploration missions and bounties on the same map since I often try to chain multiple different mission types in one expedition. Will selecting 'bounties' and 'exploration' show only events with both the mission and bounty tag? or will it show both missions and bounties? A good alternative might be player-placed markers on the map that persist when switching tags. Or I guess you mentioned the 'important' tag, that could be a work around maybe.

Ideally, I think, it would show all, but items whetr both tags apply are on the top of the list.

And I agree that custom markers would be nice.


some sort of time display built into the icon (though most of the simple ways of doing that only work if we assume all bounties have the same initial duration).

Great Idea, I'd love a clock-like timer build into the icon. Another potential advantage of round icons:)
Maybe it could only start to tick down when "absolute time left" + "projected player travel time to icon location" reach a certain treshold.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: SafariJohn on May 07, 2018, 05:07:47 PM
For fuel, hmm. I think I can actually work that in - didn't want to put the full-fledged map filter in there, but it really doesn't have to be that. There - something like this (in fact, so much "like" this that it is this):

Hopefully this will put the fuel range overlay in front of my face more often. [Insert self-deprecating smirk]
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 07, 2018, 05:13:35 PM
I really can't agree here - the days remaining for a bounty is information that -needs- to be visible on the map, because otherwise I have to click through every icon, see which bounty it matches up to, and then manually ignore entries that are too close to expiring.  Now, this doesn't necessarily need to be presented in text form; a way to filter events by time in addition to tag would work (especially if it combined with travel time so I could filter out "events my fleet cannot possibly get to before they expire"), as could some sort of time display built into the icon (though most of the simple ways of doing that only work if we assume all bounties have the same initial duration).

I'll admit, I'm focusing on bounties here because that's what, in the current game, is the important thing on the intel screen for my playstyle.  However, the same thing applies to any form of time-limited event.  If I'm a trader looking to take advantage of temporary shortfalls, I need to be able to figure out whether I can get there in time.  If I'm a pirate looking at intercepting a trader's convoy, I need to be able to figure out if I have enough time to intercept the fleet.  This is critical information; without it, I have to check through each map icon individually to figure out which ones represent actual opportunities and which ones are just chaff.

The only two cases (of those currently presented) where time isn't a critical factor are missions (where the timer starts ticking when you accept it and thus you won't have ones that are almost-expired cluttering up the map), and hazard beacons (which have no time-relevant data at all, though for these it'd still be nice to be able to mark systems that you know you've cleared; a sort of a 'tag as unimportant' rather than the current 'tag as important' option.)

I see what you're saying, yeah. But: mousing over or clicking a few icons really isn't too bad, and an "is this possible" type calculation is bound to run into problems at some point. Still, will keep an eye on this when I get to more thorough playtesting; but regardless of how that pans out, this should already be a qualitative improvement.

Not to say that if there was an easy way to instantly convey this info - without cluttering stuff up - it wouldn't be a good idea. It's also, unfortunately, the sort of info that would be most useful when there are a lot of things to sort though, which also means an increased issue with clutter.

some sort of time display built into the icon (though most of the simple ways of doing that only work if we assume all bounties have the same initial duration).

Great Idea, I'd love a clock-like timer build into the icon. Another potential advantage of round icons:)
Maybe it could only start to tick down when "absolute time left" + "projected player travel time to icon location" reach a certain treshold.

Oh, hmm! Got excited for a second, but I think the icons are too small for that to be apparent.

Well, like I said, will keep an eye on it.


Speaking of which - what's the sorting criterion for the event list on the left, there?  Time remaining would be a useful option for some event types.

It's sorted by importance, then type, and then by when the player found out about it. So e.g. within personal bounties, the newest ones would show up closer to the top of the list.


I would like to be able to see exploration missions and bounties on the same map since I often try to chain multiple different mission types in one expedition. Will selecting 'bounties' and 'exploration' show only events with both the mission and bounty tag? or will it show both missions and bounties? A good alternative might be player-placed markers on the map that persist when switching tags. Or I guess you mentioned the 'important' tag, that could be a work around maybe.

Tags are "and", so it'll only show stuff with both tags. Which in this case would be nothing. And, yeah, that's one of the things the "important" tag is meant to help with.


I'm not sure if this has been added or already fixed when hovering over a planet on the map. I want to know my relationship of said faction in that sector. When I hover over Corvus,it will show Hedgemony but in order to see if I'm friend or foe I have to go to factions tab. It is a pain do bounce back and forth on these tab since you lose information of what your doing.

That seems pretty unrelated to the blog post :) Still, fair point; keep it in mind for when/if there's a good opportunity to take a look at it.

Can you hide certain tags which can be spoilers until the player encounters them in the world? I'm pretty sure the
Spoiler
Remnants
[close]
are a spoiler for newcomers.

No, and that's a fair point. I don't know if just the word "remnants" is spoiler enough, but yeah, would have to be cognizant of that.


Lastly, is it possible for the map to be functional while the game is unpaused, perhaps with additional time acceleration functions? If the player wants to pass time while keeping appraised of Sector happenings, that would be a way to do it.

Very much not, I'm afraid. The game really doesn't support "time passes while the core UI is up" - that is, it could, but things get weird when, say, your fleet reaches a jump-point or gets attacked by pirates or whatever.



This is highly relevant to my interests.

No, seriously, I'm loving this. Tag based systems are so wonderful, I wish I could use tags to organize all my real-world stuff, too. And I'm sure that you made it easy to, as you put it, "visualize the spatial relationships between events" is a huge step forward for game flow.

:D

The only thing I can think of that's still sub-optimal is the separate map. It could probably be rolled completely into the intel UI. Oh, well.

You know, that's funny. I spent maybe a day (spread out over a few days) thinking that through and trying a few things.

What the design for that looked like is:

- A button to show/hide the intel UI widgets, i.e. list plus detail window, and adjust the brightness of the stars/nebulas (they're a lot dimmer in the intel view, to make the icons stand out)
- Two buttons, one to open the intel tab in map mode and one in intel mode
- Separate saved sets of "hyperspace map location being viewed" coordinates

Which, if you think about it, is almost identical to having two tabs. I think the "show on map" button ("S") and being able to use it to go to the map and then go back to the intel tab by pressing it again, exactly as you left it, goes a long way to make these feel tightly integrated and like part of the same UI.



Ideally, I think, it would show all, but items whetr both tags apply are on the top of the list.

One issue there is they'd all show up on the map, cluttering it up something fierce. Plus that'd be the sort of thing that's super hidden from the player. I mean, yeah, "or" instead of "and" would be nice at times, but I'm not liking the UI/interaction complexity costs that come with that, and of the two, "and" seems the much more useful option. We're dealing with potentially lots of intel, and the goal is to be able to drill down, not show more and more of it.


Hopefully this will put the fuel range overlay in front of my face more often. [Insert self-deprecating smirk]

(Ouch.)
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Wyvern on May 07, 2018, 05:26:14 PM
Speaking of which - what's the sorting criterion for the event list on the left, there?  Time remaining would be a useful option for some event types.

It's sorted by importance, then type, and then by when the player found out about it. So e.g. within personal bounties, the newest ones would show up closer to the top of the list.
So, if I'm reading that right, it's sorted by importance, then type, and then is completely random if, say, you just came back from a two-month exploratory mission and got info on all of them at the exact same time?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 07, 2018, 06:13:06 PM
It should fall back to the reverse of the order in which the intel was added in this case, i.e. bounties created more recently should show up higher up in the list, etc.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: xenoargh on May 07, 2018, 06:54:03 PM
Overall, this looks good.  Only thing I'm a mite concerned about is that getting players to pay attention to new Intel requires some work.

Right now, I feel pretty strongly that a lot of newbies were simply not aware of / finding easily where to get into Bounties, for example.  Winding our way into the UI layers was a lot of work and not terrifically intuitive.  There are a couple of solutions:

1.  Construct a Mission where you have to use the Intel system (including a little light sorting / filtering) to find a thing.

2.  Use some methodology to get players to regularly check out Intel.

I think that, for #2, the issue here is largely UI prominence / clear direction from the game.  In a AAA title, we'd expect Generic Female Voiceover to say, when we entered FTL communications range of a System, "New Intel Received" and a nice flash to that portion of the UI to briefly alert the user, both audibly and visually, that the game had additional information to dig through. 

I presume AAA voice-over stuff isn't happening (at least, not unless this hits Steam and makes a million bucks, lol) but a simple beep, directionally-shifted rightwards, might direct the player to look at that element of the UI as it flashes a little.   I know that getting players into the richness of the Intel system, so that they can get into the depth of the game as it acquires more strategic depth, is vital, so I'm hoping there's some thought put into that portion of how this will work; what happens once we click the Intel button looks really great from the standpoint of somebody who's already familiar with most of the mechanics, frankly!
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 07, 2018, 07:15:06 PM
Thank you!

1.  Construct a Mission where you have to use the Intel system (including a little light sorting / filtering) to find a thing.

2.  Use some methodology to get players to regularly check out Intel.

Hmm - I think #1 is the tutorial, since it specifically does that, including teaching about the "show on map" button and laying in a course. As far as new intel, there *is* a sound - different depending on what kind of intel you get - that plays when you receive it. It also feels like the new intel notifications are large enough (see: first screenshot in blog post) that it'd be pretty hard to miss entirely, though possibly some sort of visual attention-getter could improve things further.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Gothars on May 08, 2018, 01:55:26 AM
Oh, hmm! Got excited for a second, but I think the icons are too small for that to be apparent.

E.G. a color change in the rim would be tiny, but is still seems like it would be helpful:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/hkWgCRI.png)
[close]
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: steelwing on May 08, 2018, 05:25:31 AM
I somewhat disagree with the round icons thing, but far more important in my view is having the "days remaining" on something immediately visible.  Having the list view sort by how long ago you learned about a particular piece of intel does help, since the older items are bound to be running out sooner, but that's not the same as having it be right there in the list.  Maybe having the list be a sort of table instead would help?  You'd have columns for the faction offering, the location, the reward, and the days remaining.  The only disadvantage is it would have to hide the map to be of any use.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Histidine on May 08, 2018, 05:31:20 AM
Are multiple stages of the same event still displayed as separate report entries, where selecting one report lists all for that event?
(e.g. food shortage started; relief fleet launched; relief fleet turned back/arrived; shortage over)

Quote
Taking on a commission requires talking to a high-ranking faction official
Ha, did you happen to take this idea from Mount & Blade by any chance?
I know I did for Nexerelin, just talking to a "real" person adds a bit more personality to the whole exercise (even without the whole oath of fealty bit).
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: FooF on May 08, 2018, 05:33:32 AM
Good stuff, as always.

Hypothetical here, but will the Intel screen ever keep track of or let me sort all the individuals I've built reputation with and their general location (i.e. station commanders, patrols I've ticked off, etc.)? Right now, the reputation system for individuals isn't that important but I'm assuming it might be at some point. As it is, I typically have no idea who or where any of these individuals are so that I might exploit/avoid interactions with them.

@ Gothars

I like it. You just need to be careful to reiterate that each "clock" is relative to its maximum duration and some (a 10-day mission, for example) tick by a lot faster than others!
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: xenoargh on May 08, 2018, 05:53:15 AM
Quote
It also feels like the new intel notifications are large enough (see: first screenshot in blog post) that it'd be pretty hard to miss entirely, though possibly some sort of visual attention-getter could improve things further.
My main feeling about it is that there's going to be a stream of such data whenever we're traveling about.  At various points, the game needs to point users towards that specific UI element, so that newbies know, "that stuff on the left is associated with that button on the right".  I think that getting people into that area is almost as important as getting them into Command later on; players need to know, "hey, this is where most of the RPG-style missions live; this Sandbox has some structure".

Anyhow, the overall feel looks great; I love the filters, that'll really help make things simpler and clearer; no more UI layers, endless lists on the left, etc., which I felt really got in the way of getting to the information we need.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 08, 2018, 09:20:14 AM
E.G. a color change in the rim would be tiny, but is still seems like it would be helpful:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/hkWgCRI.png)
[close]

Oh, I was thinking something like how the ability icons get partially dimmer, but yeah, this could work. Gave it a shot:

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/oyofynp.png)
[close]

I think this is alright, hmm. Main concern is that I suspect 90% of the players wouldn't know what the heck that means or even notice it in the first place. In which case the relatively low amount of clutter this adds has no upside. Going to keep an eye on this and see how it feels to use.


Maybe having the list be a sort of table instead would help?  You'd have columns for the faction offering, the location, the reward, and the days remaining.  The only disadvantage is it would have to hide the map to be of any use.

Right. No way to fit a table in there, and I think having the map be on the same screen and not something you toggle on and off is huge for improving usability. This is really something where how many items you're looking at at the same time makes a big difference. I think the tags let you drill down enough where the numbers are manageable and sorting is not much of an issue.

E.G. if you had maybe 30 bounties up at the same time, that would be a pain, but if the game puts up 30 simultaneous bounties, then that is the actual problem, you know?


Are multiple stages of the same event still displayed as separate report entries, where selecting one report lists all for that event?
(e.g. food shortage started; relief fleet launched; relief fleet turned back/arrived; shortage over)

That's... well, that's actually entirely up to the implementation of the particular event.

There is, however, support for a piece of intel to provide an "update" that goes in the lower-left of the campaign screen that is *not* the same info as that intel's data in the intel list. Basically, there are three possible short forms: for the intel list, intel map tooltip, and an "update", which can get a parameter.

As far as a food shortage event or something similar, what I think the preferred (for me, at least) way to do it would be:

- a single piece of intel

- only show info for the current stage, maybe with general "food shortage description" blurb that doesn't change from stage to stage

- and updates on each stage being reached, sent only if the player has marked the event as "important" or participated directly to bring the change about

One of the ideas here is moving away from keeping every piece of information the player has received, and only displaying the current state for a given mission/event, with just enough context to make it make sense.

Btw, you didn't ask explicitly, but it probably bears mentioning: reports.csv is no longer used at all.


Quote
Taking on a commission requires talking to a high-ranking faction official
Ha, did you happen to take this idea from Mount & Blade by any chance?
I know I did for Nexerelin, just talking to a "real" person adds a bit more personality to the whole exercise (even without the whole oath of fealty bit).

Maybe? Not consciously. The design process was, "how to handle commissions?" "if there's one up for every faction and you can accept that feels kind of weird, and clutters up the per-faction intel listings" "ok, make it so you need to talk to a person to get one, it's important enough to warrant that anyway".


Hypothetical here, but will the Intel screen ever keep track of or let me sort all the individuals I've built reputation with and their general location (i.e. station commanders, patrols I've ticked off, etc.)? Right now, the reputation system for individuals isn't that important but I'm assuming it might be at some point. As it is, I typically have no idea who or where any of these individuals are so that I might exploit/avoid interactions with them.

Hadn't considered that, but it could certainly be used for that if that became desirable.


My main feeling about it is that there's going to be a stream of such data whenever we're traveling about.  At various points, the game needs to point users towards that specific UI element, so that newbies know, "that stuff on the left is associated with that button on the right".  I think that getting people into that area is almost as important as getting them into Command later on; players need to know, "hey, this is where most of the RPG-style missions live; this Sandbox has some structure".

Anyhow, the overall feel looks great; I love the filters, that'll really help make things simpler and clearer; no more UI layers, endless lists on the left, etc., which I felt really got in the way of getting to the information we need.

Yep, gotcha.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Cyan Leader on May 08, 2018, 09:57:31 AM
With trade fleets becoming way easier to intercept now, are there any sort of mechanic in (or planned) to make them rise in difficulty? For example, once you intercept 2 or 3 big fleets they start getting reinforced or even escorted by other fleets.

I just worry this could be a potential easy money pot and/or boring.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Megas on May 08, 2018, 01:13:39 PM
Generally, I am more interested in looting rare weapons and hullmods that are very hard to impossible to buy than a few thousand commodities.  Most of the time, the commodities are unremarkable but supplies are nice when they get rolled up.

I guess being an enemy of a major faction will hurt income generation of colonies, so unless player is already at war with them for another reason, taking out trade fleets may not always be the best use of time.

Quote
Warning Beacons
During their travels through the Sector, the player finds warning beacons in hyperspace. Now, each such find results in a piece of intel for its location, making it easy to see exactly where these systems are located, and to perhaps note any pattern to their placement that might guide future exploration. (Naturally, so the dangerous systems can be more easily avoided, and not at all plundered for the riches within.)
Honestly, the warning beacons really mean "Hey guys, big monsters and bigger riches!  Come ye and plunder!"  In this case, farm never-ending Remnants for lots of rare stuff (fighters, HVDs, and others) if we cannot produce them.  Also, glorious training for character and officers under the level cap.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Thaago on May 08, 2018, 02:05:53 PM
This looks like a nice quality of life upgrade. On the rim clock icons, I feel like I will still need to click on them to get the days remaining anyways, because thats what determines if I can make it or not. On the one hand its nice to get some information at a glance, but that information isn't sufficient.

Having tried in the past to figure out how to mod in missions and being very confused, is it possible to have an example implemented using the new system we can learn from?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 08, 2018, 02:21:57 PM
With trade fleets becoming way easier to intercept now, are there any sort of mechanic in (or planned) to make them rise in difficulty? For example, once you intercept 2 or 3 big fleets they start getting reinforced or even escorted by other fleets.

I just worry this could be a potential easy money pot and/or boring.

I *think* once you're up to intercepting that many big fleets, there would ideally be other things for you to be doing that are more-than-linearly rewarding. I do get what you're saying; just not the sort of thing I want to necessarily go fixing before it becomes a problem. There is also a natural progression to it as you simply move on to bigger targets.


This looks like a nice quality of life upgrade. On the rim clock icons, I feel like I will still need to click on them to get the days remaining anyways, because thats what determines if I can make it or not. On the one hand its nice to get some information at a glance, but that information isn't sufficient.

Yeah, I'll keep an eye on this.

(Nice thing is the tooltip shows both the time to get there at base burn and the days remaining, so it ought to be easier to make an informed decision.)

Having tried in the past to figure out how to mod in missions and being very confused, is it possible to have an example implemented using the new system we can learn from?

Hmm - sure, why not. Here's probably the simplest one, the intel for an "analyze entity" mission. Not pasting the base class; hopefully it's not necessary to get an idea for how this works. Also, there's a small component which picks which entities to use as targets. And, finally, there's *another* component which manages the relative number of "generic" missions. I.E. there's (say) a maximum of 50 active generic missions, and analyze, procurement, and survey missions all have a weight, which is used to roughly determine how many missions of each of these types there are.

But, missions are not obligated to use this system and in fact this code would work exactly the same in either case.

Spoiler
Code: java
public class AnalyzeEntityMissionIntel extends BaseMissionIntel {
public static Logger log = Global.getLogger(AnalyzeEntityMissionIntel.class);

protected int reward;
protected FactionAPI faction;
protected MarketAPI market;

protected SectorEntityToken entity;


public AnalyzeEntityMissionIntel(SectorEntityToken entity) {
this.entity = entity;

WeightedRandomPicker<MarketAPI> marketPicker = new WeightedRandomPicker<MarketAPI>();
for (MarketAPI market : Global.getSector().getEconomy().getMarketsCopy()) {
marketPicker.add(market, market.getSize());
}

market = marketPicker.pick();
if (market == null) {
endImmediately();
return;
}

faction = market.getFaction();
if (!market.getFaction().isHostileTo(Factions.INDEPENDENT) && (float) Math.random() > 0.67f) {
faction = Global.getSector().getFaction(Factions.INDEPENDENT);
}

setDuration(120f);

reward = (int) Misc.getDistance(new Vector2f(), entity.getLocationInHyperspace());

reward = (reward / 10000) * 10000;
if (reward < 10000) reward = 10000;


log.info("Created AnalyzeEntityMissionIntel: " + entity.getName() + ", faction: " + faction.getDisplayName());


initRandomCancel();
setPostingLocation(market.getPrimaryEntity());

Global.getSector().getIntelManager().queueIntel(this);

}

public SectorEntityToken getEntity() {
return entity;
}

@Override
protected MissionResult createAbandonedResult(boolean withPenalty) {
if (withPenalty) {
MissionCompletionRep rep = new MissionCompletionRep(RepRewards.HIGH, RepLevel.WELCOMING,
-RepRewards.TINY, RepLevel.INHOSPITABLE);
ReputationAdjustmentResult result = Global.getSector().adjustPlayerReputation(
new RepActionEnvelope(RepActions.MISSION_FAILURE, rep,
  null, null, true, false),
  faction.getId());
return new MissionResult(0, result);
}
return new MissionResult();
}

@Override
protected MissionResult createTimeRanOutFailedResult() {
return createAbandonedResult(true);
}

@Override
public void missionAccepted() {
entity.getMemoryWithoutUpdate().set("$aem_target", true, getDuration());
entity.getMemoryWithoutUpdate().set("$aem_eventRef", this, getDuration());
Misc.setFlagWithReason(entity.getMemoryWithoutUpdate(), MemFlags.ENTITY_MISSION_IMPORTANT,
       "aem", true, getDuration());
}


@Override
public void endMission() {
entity.getMemoryWithoutUpdate().unset("$aem_target");
entity.getMemoryWithoutUpdate().unset("$aem_eventRef");
Misc.setFlagWithReason(entity.getMemoryWithoutUpdate(), MemFlags.ENTITY_MISSION_IMPORTANT,
  "aem", false, 0f);
endAfterDelay();
}

@Override
public void advanceMission(float amount) {

}

@Override
public boolean callEvent(String ruleId, final InteractionDialogAPI dialog, List<Token> params, Map<String, MemoryAPI> memoryMap) {
String action = params.get(0).getString(memoryMap);

CampaignFleetAPI playerFleet = Global.getSector().getPlayerFleet();
CargoAPI cargo = playerFleet.getCargo();

if (action.equals("runPackage")) {
AddRemoveCommodity.addCreditsGainText(reward, dialog.getTextPanel());
cargo.getCredits().add(reward);

MissionCompletionRep rep = new MissionCompletionRep(RepRewards.HIGH, RepLevel.WELCOMING,
-RepRewards.TINY, RepLevel.INHOSPITABLE);

ReputationAdjustmentResult result = Global.getSector().adjustPlayerReputation(
new RepActionEnvelope(RepActions.MISSION_SUCCESS, rep,
  null, dialog.getTextPanel(), true, false),
  faction.getId());
setMissionResult(new MissionResult(reward, result));
setMissionState(MissionState.COMPLETED);
endMission();
}

return true;
}


protected void addBulletPoints(TooltipMakerAPI info, ListInfoMode mode) {

Color h = Misc.getHighlightColor();
Color g = Misc.getGrayColor();
float pad = 3f;
float opad = 10f;

float initPad = pad;
if (mode == ListInfoMode.IN_DESC) initPad = opad;

Color tc = getBulletColorForMode(mode);

bullet(info);
boolean isUpdate = getListInfoParam() != null;

if (isUpdate) {
// 3 possible updates: de-posted/expired, failed, completed
if (isFailed() || isCancelled()) {
return;
} else if (isCompleted()) {
if (missionResult.payment > 0) {
info.addPara("%s received", initPad, tc, h, Misc.getDGSCredits(missionResult.payment));
}
CoreReputationPlugin.addAdjustmentMessage(missionResult.rep1.delta, faction, null,
  null, null, info, tc, isUpdate, 0f);
}
} else {
// either in small description, or in tooltip/intel list
if (missionResult != null) {
if (missionResult.payment > 0) {
info.addPara("%s received", initPad, tc, h, Misc.getDGSCredits(missionResult.payment));
initPad = 0f;
}

if (missionResult.rep1 != null) {
CoreReputationPlugin.addAdjustmentMessage(missionResult.rep1.delta, faction, null,
  null, null, info, tc, isUpdate, initPad);
initPad = 0f;
}
} else {
if (mode != ListInfoMode.IN_DESC) {
info.addPara("Faction: " + faction.getDisplayName(), initPad, tc,
faction.getBaseUIColor(),
faction.getDisplayName());
initPad = 0f;
}

info.addPara("%s reward", initPad, tc, h, Misc.getDGSCredits(reward));
addDays(info, "to complete", duration, tc, 0f);
}
}

unindent(info);
}

@Override
public void createIntelInfo(TooltipMakerAPI info, ListInfoMode mode) {
Color c = getTitleColor(mode);
info.addPara(getName(), c, 0f);

addBulletPoints(info, mode);
}

public String getSortString() {
return "Analyze";
}

public String getName() {
String name = "";
// if (entity.getCustomEntitySpec() != null) {
// name = entity.getCustomEntitySpec().getNameInText();
// } else {
name = entity.getName(); // we want caps on every word since this is a title, so no getNameInText()
// }

return "Analyze " + name + getPostfixForState();
}


@Override
public FactionAPI getFactionForUIColors() {
return faction;
}

public String getSmallDescriptionTitle() {
return getName();
}


@Override
public void createSmallDescription(TooltipMakerAPI info, float width, float height) {
Color h = Misc.getHighlightColor();
Color g = Misc.getGrayColor();
//Color c = getTitleColor(mode);
Color tc = Misc.getTextColor();
float pad = 3f;
float opad = 10f;

info.addImage(faction.getLogo(), width, 128, opad);

String name = "";
String shortName = "";
String isOrAre = "is";
String aOrAn = "a";
if (entity.getCustomEntitySpec() != null) {
name = entity.getCustomEntitySpec().getNameInText();
shortName = entity.getCustomEntitySpec().getShortName();
isOrAre = entity.getCustomEntitySpec().getIsOrAre();
aOrAn = entity.getCustomEntitySpec().getAOrAn();
} else {
name = entity.getName();
shortName = entity.getName();
}

String authorities = "authorities";
if (!faction.getId().equals(market.getFactionId())) {
authorities = "concerns";
}
info.addPara("%s " + authorities + " " + market.getOnOrAt() + " " + market.getName() +
" have posted a reward for running a custom sensor package on " + aOrAn + " " + name + ".",
opad, faction.getBaseUIColor(), Misc.ucFirst(faction.getPersonNamePrefix()));

String loc = BreadcrumbSpecial.getLocatedString(entity, true);
info.addPara("The " + shortName + " " + isOrAre + " " + loc + ".", opad);

if (isPosted() || isAccepted()) {
addBulletPoints(info, ListInfoMode.IN_DESC);

addGenericMissionState(info);

addAcceptOrAbandonButton(info, width, "Accept", "Abandon");
} else {
addGenericMissionState(info);

addBulletPoints(info, ListInfoMode.IN_DESC);
}

}

public String getIcon() {
return Global.getSettings().getSpriteName("campaignMissions", "analyze_entity");
}

public Set<String> getIntelTags(SectorMapAPI map) {
Set<String> tags = super.getIntelTags(map);
tags.add(Tags.INTEL_EXPLORATION);
tags.add(faction.getId());
return tags;
}

@Override
public SectorEntityToken getMapLocation(SectorMapAPI map) {
return entity;
}



}
[close]
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Thaago on May 08, 2018, 02:56:43 PM
Wow thanks! Thats great to see how things work under the hood. I'm guessing this is called by the manager component you mentioned that limits the number of missions available.

Will we as modders be able to hook our own in into the same system, or would we write our own plugin to call the missions?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 08, 2018, 03:29:09 PM
I'm guessing this is called by the manager component you mentioned that limits the number of missions available.

Yeah, exactly.

Will we as modders be able to hook our own in into the same system, or would we write our own plugin to call the missions?

Either, depending on how you want it to work. Or entirely custom logic for adding these. The amount of code to hook it up is pretty minimal in either case.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Gothars on May 08, 2018, 04:11:07 PM
Gave it a shot:

Cool!


I think this is alright, hmm. Main concern is that I suspect 90% of the players wouldn't know what the heck that means or even notice it in the first place. In which case the relatively low amount of clutter this adds has no upside. Going to keep an eye on this and see how it feels to use.

Mhh...You could use flashing warning colors if an icon is about to run out of time that the player actively accepted or marked as important. Would certainly draw attention in the short term and be educational in the long term.


I mean, yeah, "or" instead of "and" would be nice at times, but I'm not liking the UI/interaction complexity costs that come with that, and of the two, "and" seems the much more useful option. We're dealing with potentially lots of intel, and the goal is to be able to drill down, not show more and more of it.

Thought about that a bit: maybe hovering the cursor over a tag could work as "or"? No added UI elements, self-explanatory, no danger of cluttering the map with symbols, since you can't hover over more than one tag at a time (so display the symbols of two at most). But it would be nice to view e.g. bounties and missions at the same time to plan an optimal route.

Another benefit: Showing the entirety of two items groups (from hovering) just before showing the overlap of those groups (from then clicking) would be valuable visual information. It would immediately give you a feeling for how similar or dissimilar the two groups are, relative to their size.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Robbie Vulcan on May 08, 2018, 04:47:38 PM
maybe hovering the cursor over a tag could work as "or"?

How about left click/right click, and highlighting the boxes with diff colors to indicate which you've done. A set of transparent diagonal stripes to cross out the excluded boxes, or some similar indicator like greying the boxes out, would make it easier to visually display how the player input is affecting the filters. Hovering seems difficult to intuit.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Nanao-kun on May 08, 2018, 06:40:04 PM
Oh, I was thinking something like how the ability icons get partially dimmer, but yeah, this could work. Gave it a shot:

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/oyofynp.png)
[close]

I think this is alright, hmm. Main concern is that I suspect 90% of the players wouldn't know what the heck that means or even notice it in the first place. In which case the relatively low amount of clutter this adds has no upside. Going to keep an eye on this and see how it feels to use.

That just means one more thing for someone to put in a "Starsector - Top 10 QOL features YOU NEVER KNEW EXISTED!" video in the future. ;)
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Embercloud on May 09, 2018, 01:21:21 AM
Thank you for looking at the warning beacons, I had to write down Where the level 3 ones were on pen and paper previously.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: ArkAngel on May 09, 2018, 09:02:53 AM
I’m really a fan of the circular time remaining effect on the intel screen. I feel like it’s fairly intuitive to make the leep to understanding what it means after looking at it, then at the tooltip, then at it.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 09, 2018, 09:47:38 AM
Thought about that a bit: maybe hovering the cursor over a tag could work as "or"? No added UI elements, self-explanatory, no danger of cluttering the map with symbols, since you can't hover over more than one tag at a time (so display the symbols of two at most). But it would be nice to view e.g. bounties and missions at the same time to plan an optimal route.

Another benefit: Showing the entirety of two items groups (from hovering) just before showing the overlap of those groups (from then clicking) would be valuable visual information. It would immediately give you a feeling for how similar or dissimilar the two groups are, relative to their size.

Hmm - unfortunately, that's super awkward from an implementation standpoint. The way stuff is laid out on the map depends on the set of stuff being laid out (as it tries to avoid overlap to a degree, using some heuristics), so e.g. you can't just add more icons and have the existing icons/names/etc stay in the same spots, which seems crucial for this concept.

It also feels like it might feel weird because one's impulse might be to mouse over one of the icons that just popped up to see what it's about, causing it to disappear. But mainly it's just that it's a pain to even give this idea a shot.

How about left click/right click, and highlighting the boxes with diff colors to indicate which you've done. A set of transparent diagonal stripes to cross out the excluded boxes, or some similar indicator like greying the boxes out, would make it easier to visually display how the player input is affecting the filters.

It's not really "excluded", though, it's logical-AND vs OR. Tags are excluded if they're just not checked. Having a mix of both AND and OR is ... well, it's going to be confusing to the player, and it's not very clear how it would work if you think through the details. (E.G. missions and hegemony or tri-tachyon = ??? the desired answer is probably missions AND (hegemony or tritachyon) but that requires making distinctions between tags and trying to intuit the order of operations based on that and that's just crazy town). Plus it's asking the player to think about something that ideally they could just do without it getting in the way. I think there's a lot of value in the UI just being super simple to use.


That just means one more thing for someone to put in a "Starsector - Top 10 QOL features YOU NEVER KNEW EXISTED!" video in the future. ;)

:) but also :(


Thank you for looking at the warning beacons, I had to write down Where the level 3 ones were on pen and paper previously.

(Haha, nice.)

I’m really a fan of the circular time remaining effect on the intel screen. I feel like it’s fairly intuitive to make the leep to understanding what it means after looking at it, then at the tooltip, then at it.

Thank you, that's very encouraging!
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: steelwing on May 09, 2018, 10:33:59 AM
E.G. a color change in the rim would be tiny, but is still seems like it would be helpful:
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/hkWgCRI.png)
[close]

Oh, I was thinking something like how the ability icons get partially dimmer, but yeah, this could work. Gave it a shot:

Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/oyofynp.png)
[close]

I think this is alright, hmm. Main concern is that I suspect 90% of the players wouldn't know what the heck that means or even notice it in the first place. In which case the relatively low amount of clutter this adds has no upside. Going to keep an eye on this and see how it feels to use.
This would suit me perfectly. :)
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Torch on May 25, 2018, 11:07:26 AM
What about working the "time to get there" into the "time left" on the mission icons by putting another bar on? I made a couple examples.

Image
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/ZZKWYdm.png)
[close]

GIF example
(https://i.imgur.com/pOeRnVn.gif)
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on May 25, 2018, 11:44:48 AM
Hi, and welcome to the forum! Starting off strong, with an animated gif :) *thumbs up*

Hmm. My feeling is that it might be a bit too much detail/meaning to try to cram into such a small visual element; more could be less here if it ends up adding more clutter than clarity.

Not that it couldn't work, necessarily, that's just my initial thought. Might be worth a look, but I'm also pretty done with that section of the UI and working on other things, so I don't want to go back and start messing with it again, if that makes sense, unless it's for something essential.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: vivalas on June 02, 2018, 01:45:01 PM
New to the forum too, but love this game.

Apologies if this has already been suggested or asked for, but since we're on the topic of faction commissions, I always thought it would be neat if faction commission got more gameplay.

It would be cool to be able to search ships and basically do the same things faction ships do now. Confiscate contraband, take bribes, mark people as criminals etc. Not many space games out there let you play as the navy/police and actually do the things they do, so it would be pretty neat.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on June 02, 2018, 09:47:10 PM
New to the forum too, but love this game.

Apologies if this has already been suggested or asked for, but since we're on the topic of faction commissions, I always thought it would be neat if faction commission got more gameplay.

It would be cool to be able to search ships and basically do the same things faction ships do now. Confiscate contraband, take bribes, mark people as criminals etc. Not many space games out there let you play as the navy/police and actually do the things they do, so it would be pretty neat.

Hi, and welcome to the forum!

So, hmm. This is the sort of thing where you could literally add an endless number of things kind of like it, just different directions to flesh things out in. My feeling is that it makes sense to flesh out things like this when they're solving a particular gameplay or design problem or just tie into a bunch of mechanics.

So, for example, I probably wouldn't want to go very deep into this in particular, since the game really isn't about that - it'd make more sense for a game focused on trying to simulate that aspect of things.

On the other hand, I could totally see adding a mechanic where you can intercept a smuggler and have certain options for dealing with them. In fact, was just thinking about this the other day, in the context of a specific difficulty one of your colonies might be facing, which is really the crux of things.

If this kind of thing is the glue that helps build something else that's design-critical, then I'm all for it. If it's just for its own sake, then I'm very much hesitant to do that - building out a system like that with depth is a lot of work (and a lot of complexity, potential for bugs, and for generally bogging down development), and it needs to play a critical role in the design to be justified.

Not to say it's a bad idea, per se! It is indeed neat :)
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: xenoargh on June 06, 2018, 12:48:12 AM
If scanning a fleet worked and freighter fleets carried good cargoes instead of nearly-always-junk, it'd make piracy considerably more interesting.

Problem here is largely UI; writing the code to get the fleet's cargo manifest is trivial, pushing that to the player, not so much.  I've thought about how I'd do it in a mod; have "Scanning" be a Skill, open a Dialog that displayed the cargo to the player after it completes, with a possible rep penalty if you're not running with your Transponder down (after all, scanning a fleet looks pretty suspicious).
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Gothars on June 06, 2018, 01:07:55 AM
Or you could display a partial cargo manifest on the fleet mouse-over, when you're close enough to a fleet. Basically, introduce another sensor status level that comes after "unidentified - just symbols", "unidentified - hulls visible" and "identified".

Like so:
(https://i.imgur.com/SaQAMYR.jpg)

I think it should only show the few most valuable/numerous goods in their cargo holds.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Megas on June 06, 2018, 05:34:47 AM
When raiding ships for cargo, all I care about are things my ships use - fuel, supplies, and weapons.  Usually, they have commodities I do not care about, but occasionally, they carry supplies and it is a jackpot.

Usually, I kill enemy trade fleets for no reason aside from being the next convenient target to kill, although the chance for the 5000 supply jackpot is nice too.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Thaago on June 06, 2018, 07:29:04 AM
I really like the mockup! Icons about that size works for visibility imo.

One issue with showing the supplies and fuel is that it would expose how the AI doesn't use it. Perhaps instead of showing the exact number, it shows a number of icons that approximates it, like the old trade screen. That way we get an idea at a glance what is in the ships, but don't have an exact count. It also 'makes sense' considering that when the AI scans us, they don't always find things. We also can't tell exactly whats in other ships.

Bonus points: if the ships have shielded cargo holds, the cargo doesn't show up on this type of scan.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: xenoargh on June 06, 2018, 11:06:48 AM
I like that mockup a lot, too!  Simple and uses something that already exists.  Nice :)
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on June 06, 2018, 12:34:07 PM
The mockup does look nice! But, erm, that info is already in the tooltip's action text - aside from the count, which you can roughly guess at based on the fleet size, anyway.

Both the trade fleet departure intel and interacting with a trade fleet also tell you what cargo they're carrying, btw. So I think in terms of piracy, it's in good shape as far as UI support goes.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: xenoargh on June 06, 2018, 01:44:23 PM
Yeah, but this arrangement allows us to read it almost instantly.  As it is, we'd have to pause to access that, most of the time.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Gothars on June 07, 2018, 08:52:46 AM
A fleet that loads something doesn't actually have any of the stuff when you raid it, right? That was at least my experience.
Some way to know that beforehand would be nice. That information could be intergrated into the current UI, though (loading x (50%) from y).
Or you could change the mechanic so they get everything at the start of the loading pricess, not at the end.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: Alex on June 07, 2018, 10:17:39 AM
Yeah, they get stuff when loading is finished. The info displayed in the interaction dialog now should clarify that, i.e. it'll say they're not carrying any cargo or something to that effect.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Intel UI
Post by: SafariJohn on June 07, 2018, 11:17:17 AM
You could split loading and unloading into two parts, 0% and 50%, if you wanted to add granularity to it. I think that would be simpler than a new "loading X% complete" mechanism?