What he said & the whole point is quite the opposite, mr.WHO. I.e. changing the letters rationale from a size only approach to a size and function approach walks hand in hand with having a visual representation imparting function as well as size. Indeed to the extent that the last vid seems to suggest the latter I would expect it to also somewhat suggest the former.Killjaeden wrote:It is indeed, i'm not sure who is arguing that letters could be a replacement of icons ?mr.WHO wrote:The whole point that M1, M2... letters are easier to use in combat than icons is invalid
About the S M L XL Ship classification business
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
Feel free to ignore the drive by commenters who obviously haven't read the thread.
Ok going to come at this with my experience...pulling from time in the USAF, mechanical design, retail, and a little computer science mix.
XS-XL is very mass market retail friendly way of categorizing. In a environment where volume is king. Pushing product out in a way that is quick and simple, yet requires (by design) the interested party to invest their time to figure out the details....ie browse and hopefully buy more. It is very simplistic for linear sorting, however not inclusive of function. Men get inches for measurements, women get crazy wierd numbers...because well, reasons. But retail is a psyc game .... that uses codes too in a somewhat devious way...not getting onto that, that would be a doctoral thesis.
In the background of retail though, 2-3 digit codes rule...for speedy filtering, to see where which products go to which dept. And this is how all other logistical operation works from chemical processing, waste management, mechanical hardware designations...
So the question is what is the point of the designation, if it's to do a linear sort, you use the sizing method, if it's to provide functional information you need a code. That's just how the rest of the world does it. The question is for the developer's then...who is the target for this information... who is their target demographic?
Can argue about how confusing X3s designations were, but the idea was sound and learnable, with room for improvement (M6 corv, M7 frig, M8 bomber????). Symbols / icons are the essentially the same thing...but aren't used often because they don't translate to text. Great for a graphical game, but that's where the code equivalent comes in.
So, yeah I'm baised. Lol, well quite frankly because every job I've had uses letter codes to identify the properties of similar type "things" for at a glance information. If that isn't how craft are going to be designated...then that tells me that that information is not deemed important to the target player base...which means Im not part of the target player base...which concerns me. Especially how much focus is on this new interface.
For the sake of argument, hoping for the best. Designations such as CSC, CF, FS, XT....and such are not ideal. They can get visually mixed and depending on how you assign them...make a muddled list. Meaning you could be finding military, commercial, civilian craft of all sorts and shapes appearing in somewhat random order. The Mx, Tx was somewhat elegant in it put the more "important" ships at the top if you just did a simple alphanumeric sort. And the + symbol was a very recognizable addition to point out outliers.
I'd love to think tank a better system that improves the X3 format to be more accessible, but if XS-XL is going to be the goal...then I can already see the marketing aspect taking priority.
Ok going to come at this with my experience...pulling from time in the USAF, mechanical design, retail, and a little computer science mix.
XS-XL is very mass market retail friendly way of categorizing. In a environment where volume is king. Pushing product out in a way that is quick and simple, yet requires (by design) the interested party to invest their time to figure out the details....ie browse and hopefully buy more. It is very simplistic for linear sorting, however not inclusive of function. Men get inches for measurements, women get crazy wierd numbers...because well, reasons. But retail is a psyc game .... that uses codes too in a somewhat devious way...not getting onto that, that would be a doctoral thesis.
In the background of retail though, 2-3 digit codes rule...for speedy filtering, to see where which products go to which dept. And this is how all other logistical operation works from chemical processing, waste management, mechanical hardware designations...
So the question is what is the point of the designation, if it's to do a linear sort, you use the sizing method, if it's to provide functional information you need a code. That's just how the rest of the world does it. The question is for the developer's then...who is the target for this information... who is their target demographic?
Can argue about how confusing X3s designations were, but the idea was sound and learnable, with room for improvement (M6 corv, M7 frig, M8 bomber????). Symbols / icons are the essentially the same thing...but aren't used often because they don't translate to text. Great for a graphical game, but that's where the code equivalent comes in.
So, yeah I'm baised. Lol, well quite frankly because every job I've had uses letter codes to identify the properties of similar type "things" for at a glance information. If that isn't how craft are going to be designated...then that tells me that that information is not deemed important to the target player base...which means Im not part of the target player base...which concerns me. Especially how much focus is on this new interface.
For the sake of argument, hoping for the best. Designations such as CSC, CF, FS, XT....and such are not ideal. They can get visually mixed and depending on how you assign them...make a muddled list. Meaning you could be finding military, commercial, civilian craft of all sorts and shapes appearing in somewhat random order. The Mx, Tx was somewhat elegant in it put the more "important" ships at the top if you just did a simple alphanumeric sort. And the + symbol was a very recognizable addition to point out outliers.
I'd love to think tank a better system that improves the X3 format to be more accessible, but if XS-XL is going to be the goal...then I can already see the marketing aspect taking priority.
-
RAVEN.myst
- Posts: 2585
- Joined: Mon, 20. Jun 11, 13:16
Object IDs like in X3 are incredibly useful, neatly sort into a list in sector maps and give you all the important information straight away:
1) Faction
2) Type of ship
3) Unique identifier (useful to keep track of your own ships if you have unnamed duplicates not to mention AI ships)
I know sector maps/layout aren't final but just look at this comparison for a second:
https://i.imgur.com/OteoErR.png
YTLOU-71 vs AAI-427
I'm assuming one of the A's is for Argon(?) but it's player property, so that's already confusing. Then AI-427? AO-761? I know I haven't played X:R so may be missing things here but the fact that I can't even begin to guess what any of it means isn't promising (if the unique ID is only the number, it makes it difficult to memorise vs. the XX-## identifier of X3).
Whereas YTLOU-71 immediately tells me: Ok, this is a ship of mine, it's a TL, and alongside OU-71 is unique enough with the letters and number that it will stand out to me in a list. It also helps that AI ships that form part of the same thing are close together in IDs (look at the pirate wing and Jonferco escort on the list) - immediately recognisable which ships "belong together". This carries over to the naming scheme as well, where AI ships are [Faction] [Role] [Class] [Subclass], which helps to process the list at a glance. The icons are helpful but not as helpful as the text.
It's also important to note how the IDs are all vertically aligned in X3, which parses well just by skimming the list, whereas the dev screenshot in X4 has them following the name in parentheses, which given disparate name lengths will be all over the place, making it hard to find what you're looking for.
Not saying the M# classification system is the best option, but something similar should be implemented, with recognisable and actually descriptive ship IDs.
{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}
1) Faction
2) Type of ship
3) Unique identifier (useful to keep track of your own ships if you have unnamed duplicates not to mention AI ships)
I know sector maps/layout aren't final but just look at this comparison for a second:
https://i.imgur.com/OteoErR.png
YTLOU-71 vs AAI-427
I'm assuming one of the A's is for Argon(?) but it's player property, so that's already confusing. Then AI-427? AO-761? I know I haven't played X:R so may be missing things here but the fact that I can't even begin to guess what any of it means isn't promising (if the unique ID is only the number, it makes it difficult to memorise vs. the XX-## identifier of X3).
Whereas YTLOU-71 immediately tells me: Ok, this is a ship of mine, it's a TL, and alongside OU-71 is unique enough with the letters and number that it will stand out to me in a list. It also helps that AI ships that form part of the same thing are close together in IDs (look at the pirate wing and Jonferco escort on the list) - immediately recognisable which ships "belong together". This carries over to the naming scheme as well, where AI ships are [Faction] [Role] [Class] [Subclass], which helps to process the list at a glance. The icons are helpful but not as helpful as the text.
It's also important to note how the IDs are all vertically aligned in X3, which parses well just by skimming the list, whereas the dev screenshot in X4 has them following the name in parentheses, which given disparate name lengths will be all over the place, making it hard to find what you're looking for.
Not saying the M# classification system is the best option, but something similar should be implemented, with recognisable and actually descriptive ship IDs.
{Images posted directly to the forums should not be greater than 640x480 or 100kb, oversize image now linked - Terre}
-
Sandalpocalypse
- Posts: 4447
- Joined: Tue, 2. Dec 03, 22:28
well for one thing you are comparing the property list with 2 ships on it (hardly enough to make any determinations) to a sector list.
XR, and from what i've seen x4 have a more hierarchal and collapsable focus. so a given task group will show up as one object (i.e. Pirate Riot Squad, or HoA Freedom Frigate). X4 will also focus more on looking at the actual map than looking at a list as the map will be much more useable on several dimensions; you'll be able to view a greater gameplay area since it is split up less than both X3 and XR, and what you see will be vastly more informative.
XR, and from what i've seen x4 have a more hierarchal and collapsable focus. so a given task group will show up as one object (i.e. Pirate Riot Squad, or HoA Freedom Frigate). X4 will also focus more on looking at the actual map than looking at a list as the map will be much more useable on several dimensions; you'll be able to view a greater gameplay area since it is split up less than both X3 and XR, and what you see will be vastly more informative.
Irrational factors are clearly at work.
https://i.imgur.com/CXfFRu1.pngSandalpocalypse wrote:well for one thing you are comparing the property list with 2 ships on it (hardly enough to make any determinations) to a sector list.
XR, and from what i've seen x4 have a more hierarchal and collapsable focus. so a given task group will show up as one object (i.e. Pirate Riot Squad, or HoA Freedom Frigate). X4 will also focus more on looking at the actual map than looking at a list as the map will be much more useable on several dimensions; you'll be able to view a greater gameplay area since it is split up less than both X3 and XR, and what you see will be vastly more informative.
Got some screengrabs for you from the recent stream which further illustrate the visual confusion.
See how the IDs don't line up and are even wrapped out of the list entirely when the name is too long, making it impossible to distinguish between objects (icons would be the same, too).
Being able to collapse things I think is somewhat of a double edged sword - on the one hand it is nice to have things grouped together and "out of sight" when not needed, but not only is this difficult from context (how are things grouped together? what happens when groupings change? what is relevant right now?), it also takes up extra space and makes it harder to see information at a glance. For instance, not easily being able to judge the strength of a collapsed "raiding party", having to click through all collapsed sections and then scroll through to find a specific ship, etc.
Last edited by adeine on Mon, 9. Oct 17, 10:00, edited 1 time in total.
-
Sparky Sparkycorp
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 8074
- Joined: Tue, 30. Mar 04, 12:28
What part takes up extra space? Do you mean the plus symbol next to groups in XR?adeine wrote: Being able to collapse things I think is somewhat of a double edged sword - on the one hand it is nice to have things grouped together and "out of sight" when not needed, but not only is this difficult from context (how are things grouped together? what happens when groupings change? what is relevant right now?), it also takes up extra space and makes it harder to see information at a glance. For instance, not easily being able to judge the strength of a collapsed "raiding party", having to click through all collapsed sections and then scroll through to find a specific ship, etc.
MegaJohnny has converted that into a number, which addressses the issue of not knowing the size of the group. That doesn't address all your concerns but it's a nice improvement on one aspect.
https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=396379
While a number is better than the plus sign it still doesn't tell the player anything about what ships make up the group (type, what hull/shields they are at, etc.).Sparky Sparkycorp wrote: What part takes up extra space? Do you mean the plus symbol next to groups in XR?
MegaJohnny has converted that into a number, which addressses the issue of not knowing the size of the group. That doesn't address all your concerns but it's a nice improvement on one aspect.
https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=396379
The extra space investment is obvious when compared to the X3 property/sector lists - all the headers, group captions and variable spacing elements mean we're looking at ~12 entries at a time whereas it's about 60 entries in X3 (with different sections for stations, ships, and player property, too, plus full IDs and icons which are missing in the current X4 lists).