Small, probably unpopular request about Hidden Movement screen

[Virosa]

It does apply, unless you assume i know how the HM screen would work IF it was working as intended. Which i don't.

My argument only exist as it is because of the way the HM screen work as it is now. I'm not trying to pit my argument to the theoretical instance where the HM (working as you have just described) goes versus Text overlay (working as i had described).

Atm, i think if it was possible to remove the HM we could see which method is closer to working acceptably.

And my argument to the theoretical my non-HM way versus your HM way is:

During HM, its basically like closing your eyes. It interrupt the flow of data, immersion and confuse the "where was/am i at" for me. Which all irritate me and spoil the experience a bit. I'm a non-stop kind of guy, that is, when it is in the process of something, stopping is blasphemous.

If i'm not making any sense, here is an simple example;

You watch a TV show, every 3 second, they interrupt the flow for annoying ass commercials. THAT is exactly how the HM make me feel.

Ergo; I don't watch TV. I don't have a TV. I HATE TV. I watch every tv show on the computer, cut from commercials. Online, (edit: If any,) the commercials are BEFORE, therefore, no interruption, and that make me very happy.

[Aaron]

Both the hidden movement screen and the movement of the camera in general during the alien turn are really rough right now, they shouldn't be taken as an indication of final intention. We are going to look at them again during polishing with a view to reducing the jarring nature of the camera switches and transitions, and deciding whether we want the full screen HM image or just a sub screen; also probably better indication of the demarcation between the player's turn and an alien turn.

[Gauddlike]

It does apply, unless you assume i know how the HM screen would work IF it was working as intended. Which i don't.

My argument only exist as it is because of the way the HM screen work as it is now. I'm not trying to pit my argument to the theoretical instance where the HM (working as you have just described) goes versus Text overlay (working as i had described).

My point is that the two systems would not be functionally different.

The only difference would be the aesthetics of the display.

The camera tracking would (or should) be identical, the only difference would be that when no visible action is taking place the proposed system would display a static view of the battlefield with 'Alien Turn' flashing on the screen while the HM system would replace that static view with the HM image.

Changes to what the camera tracks and ignores has no bearing on what is displayed when nothing is being tracked.

That would be a completely different suggestion thread.

If i'm not making any sense, here is an simple example;

You watch a TV show, every 3 second, they interrupt the flow for annoying ass commercials. THAT is exactly how the HM make me feel.

Ergo; I don't watch TV. I don't have a TV. I HATE TV. I watch every tv show on the computer, cut from commercials. Online, (edit: If any,) the commercials are BEFORE, therefore, no interruption, and that make me very happy.

That is not really an accurate analogy though.

For that to be accurate there would need to be constant action on the screen in the system you suggest which would not be the case.

The screen would freeze when nothing was being tracked, likely in an area that was not even close to the next area to be shown.

For example you have a soldier about to breach the UFO (S1) and one who is several screens away near the dropship (S2).

At the start of the alien turn you are watching the soldier by the dropship for 10 seconds with nothing happening.

Then the screen jumps to show a plasma trail going past S2 then sits there for a couple of seconds as nothing else is seen.

The screen then jumps to the right of S1 to show an alien walking past then freezes.

4 seconds later it jumps again to the left of S1 to show another shot then freezes until your turn begins.

For the HM method it would be identical except instead of sitting watching nothing happen on a frozen image you are looking at the HM image.

The non HM version would be closer to watching your TV show with pauses every 3 seconds for streaming (to alter your analogy to something that fits the actual visual effect).

[Virosa]

That is not really an accurate analogy though.

For that to be accurate there would need to be constant action on the screen in the system you suggest which would not be the case.

The screen would freeze when nothing was being tracked, likely in an area that was not even close to the next area to be shown.

For example you have a soldier about to breach the UFO (S1) and one who is several screens away near the dropship (S2).

At the start of the alien turn you are watching the soldier by the dropship for 10 seconds with nothing happening.

Then the screen jumps to show a plasma trail going past S2 then sits there for a couple of seconds as nothing else is seen.

The screen then jumps to the right of S1 to show an alien walking past then freezes.

4 seconds later it jumps again to the left of S1 to show another shot then freezes until your turn begins.

For the HM method it would be identical except instead of sitting watching nothing happen on a frozen image you are looking at the HM image.

The non HM version would be closer to watching your TV show with pauses every 3 seconds for streaming (to alter your analogy to something that fits the actual visual effect).

What the-. lol.

What i said is exactly right; If you can see your soldier for 10 second and nothing happen. You just saw "something" (Nothing) and heard "nothing"(Silence).

Nothing is something. It's data. The HM take this occurrence and transform it into : You did not see or not see anything (you were blind). You did not hear or not hear properly (your point of reference was hidden by the HM), thus it is hard to tell which direction the gunshots/footsteps would have come from, if any.

Conclusion; It is NOT the same.

[Gauddlike]

Sounds are a tricky one.

They do not have a location as such so cannot be traced in the same way.

The screen cannot, for example, centre on the soldier closest to the sound so you would not have any idea where the sound originated from.

That could be hugely misleading if you believed it was near the soldier you were currently watching when in fact is was on the other side of the map.

I don't believe Chris was interested in adding directional sounds when this was brought up previously.

If the HM screen is up you know that nothing happened in view of any of your soldiers.

If you are watching one of your soldiers stand in a field you know that nothing happened in view of him.

The data that nothing just happened is the same in both cases, only the way it is represented differs.

In your suggestion you watch an empty field while nothing happens, in the current system you watch a picture while nothing happens.

As soon as anything does happen both systems jump to the action.

The HM screen demonstrates that nothing is happening anywhere on the map that can be seen by your troops, the static battlefield image shows that nothing is happening in the area that you are looking at and probably not anywhere else either.

To me the effect is the same, I can either watch nothing happening in a specific area and draw the conclusion that nothing is happening anywhere else or I can watch the HM screen and conclude that nothing is happening anywhere visible.

*edit* Not a very clear post this one.

I might write a clearer version some time, possibly not though

Edited May 20, 2013 by Gauddlike

[smoitessier]

Allow transparency in the hidden movement image overlays and you could have both ways working just by adding an image that is mainly transparent with whatever text overlay you want.

You could see through the background so the map is visible, you could even add a sepia/red/grey tinge to the battlefield view or whatever you wanted to do.

That would be easy to test, but unfortunately the hidden movement image is a jpeg which doesn't allow for transparency, does anyone know how to modify the right xml pref to point it to a hiddenmove.png instead?

[Gauddlike]

I think it is currently hard coded unfortunately.

[ladlon]

Both the hidden movement screen and the movement of the camera in general during the alien turn are really rough right now, they shouldn't be taken as an indication of final intention. We are going to look at them again during polishing with a view to reducing the jarring nature of the camera switches and transitions, and deciding whether we want the full screen HM image or just a sub screen; also probably better indication of the demarcation between the player's turn and an alien turn.

Ah, that's a fair point! I wasn't sure if it was pretty much finalized or not.

Ya, it's kind of a tough line in doing modern versions of older games... deciding between being faithful to the old game vs making an alteration which might (arguably) 'better' (smoother, more refined, more efficient, whatever).

For me, the current HM screen is only really 'bad' when you have a situation where you are frequently (and quickly) jumping back and forth through them... sometimes with not enough read time. I suppose one 'solution' would be to do all hidden moves in one uninturrupted group, so you not only go to the HM screen once, as well as (generally) being on it for more than a second... but, that's undoubtably far too much work for such a (relatively) unimportant issue.

The superimposed text certainly would be 'smoother', but again, I wouldn't want to take the original way out for those wanting a more authentic experience (or who prefer the image).

Certainly won't stop me from getting the game, but I figured I'd chime in and express an opinion of what I've seen so far. Still, something I'd prefer to see an option for (or a change, if the rest of the world would agree with it!).

I'm glad to hear that you guys are still working on that, though.

(Hey, what about a cross dissolve between the screens? That would smooth it out, plus add a small, needed delay to some of the faster cutaways...)

Edited May 20, 2013 by ladlon

[Virosa]

Well sorry for thinking sound would work like one would think it should.

Sorry for not knowing that the reason i couldn't tell where the sound came from was not because the point of origin (camera centering on) was not always the same. I would of been able to tell that is the case, if the HM screen wasn't continually shoved in my face.

It seem credible to me that when the HM is up, the camera still swing around, centering on unknowns, firing at each other. Therefore because of the uncertainty of the current HM system, even if proper sound was implemented as of now, one could not be able to tell.

Honestly, i didn't think one of the most important aspect of localization in a tactical warfare environment would be gimped. The tools i have myself used to implement this in some projects was as simple as one line of code: "Distance between currentCamLocation and thisOrThatSoundsPointOfOrigin multiplied by soundDistanceFalloffValue = currentSFXVolumeVariable to be applied with a neat (even if the sound module i used had the error handling already coded in) "If less than 0 then = 0" just to create one less error.

The module then took the angle of loc1 to loc2, it took my distance value and calculated itself how to implement the sound in Stereo. This mean it create a slight delay before the left ear also hear what the right ear just heard(for example).

The brain is what make most of the work into knowing where it came from and at what distance. Feeding it the little information it needed was as simple, for me, as using that open source sound module and feeding it few variables.

---

Now lets go back directly on topic; My example of TV Commercial versus the HM screen is quite, on the contrary of all you have been saying; Correct.

Unless you're Hitler, you're not qualified to tell me how the HM and TV Commercial aren't the same to me, as they clearly make me feel the same. This is not something you can debate.

So lets recap;

-"We" (some of us) find it jarring/annoying/irritating.

-I, that is ME, feel it so because, to me, its the same as having a commercial shoved in my face DURING a TV show.

-Whether in the end, in a perfect world where this game has no bugs; Where HM and non HM "theorically" give the same information, according to you anyways, is the same, is irrelevant.

The HM screen make ME lose MY bearings and therefore I LOSE useful data, by simply making me distracted.

See what i did there?

It may be the same to you, or you may simply wish to stick to the idea that it is the same. But the fact simply is, it is not the same for everyone and since for you it is the same, then the logical solution is going with non-HM. Since its no different to you but it is different to us.

[Gauddlike]

The reason I pointed out the limitations in the sound system is because it is not obvious.

Thought you might find the information useful, or at least interesting.

If not then feel free to ignore it or attack me for providing it.

As has been posted many times the game engine used is not really up to the task but it was selected early on (by someone who left the team shortly afterwards) and by the time the limitations became a problem too much work had been done to change it.

To compound the problem the developers of the game engine are no longer supporting it and have so far refused to respond to Chris when he has asked for permission to make alterations to the engine to suit Xenonauts so no changes can legally be made.

Maybe that kind of access is not required to add functional directional sounds to the game but as Chris has demonstrated no interest in investing the resources to find out we are left with the basic system.

As for the second point...

If you suggest removing a system from the game that I like then I WILL debate it.

I have just as much right to do so as you do.

You also suggest that my opinion should be disregarded because I see no difference between the two systems under debate.

In fact I see one difference, which as I have said repeatedly is aesthetic rather than functional.

I disagree that I should be forced to put up with your system simply because you reword my objection so that you can wave it away.

Aesthetically I feel that the HM method is better for me.

However rather than suggest that you be forced to put up with the HM I have in fact also suggested a way that both options could be viable with a (hopefully) fairly easy change.

The functions remain the same, the only difference would be displaying a HM screen or leaving the existing game screen visible when nothing is happening.

I apologise if trying to provide a different way of thinking about the HM screen offended you.

I assure you that I likely feel just as strongly about having to stare at a frozen screen that I cannot interact with as you do about having to look at the HM screen.

That would be why I suggested the method that would allow you to play without it while allowing others to keep it.

I have not yet seen your opinion on that suggestion.

[Virosa]

First, i'm not offended. I spent way too much time on the internet for that. Alot of people call me blunt or un-diplomatic. In a way, that is true.

Also it is very hard for me to put my thoughts in word, at least, for most people to read it as coherent. So i tend to be kind of dyslexic in where i lose coherence or heading. I can drop a point that i should have iterated upon;

Thus, for the sake of "not wandering off", i'll let someone else's word say pretty much what i think of dual feature. Of course in this case, its not as dramatic as what CBJ from Egosoft said for that other particular issue. In our case, both feature, HM and non-HM could mechanically work the same, after HM get redone. But in general, having done a bit of "work" myself, i tend to agree with:

Actually yes, it may be. I've explained this before, but I'll do it again with this particular context in mind.

Every time there is a discussion about a particular feature, you have three camps. There's the "I want this" camp, the "I want that" camp, and then you have the people who think they have a magic solution that will make everyone happy, the "make it optional" camp. The trouble is that it's not the magic solution those people think it is.

Creating a game that is fun and enjoyable is about making game design decisions, not dithering about it and ending up leaving the player to decide. While some players have strong opinions about a feature, most will just go with the default setting, and if you have dithered and not designed your game firmly around a core set of solid design decisions, then everyone's experience will be almost certainly be the poorer for it. Of course there are exceptions, particular features such as graphics settings, where giving people options doesn't detract from the game's core design, but for something fundamental like the cockpit it is almost always better to make a decision and accept that it won't please everyone than to dither and give people two different options, neither of which can be fully followed through because you have to take into account the possibility that people may choose the other option.

And that brings me to the second point, which is that making something optional costs more than making a design choice even in the case where one of the options is simply not having that feature. Why? Well, because not only do you have to develop the feature (or in the worst case two different versions of the feature) but you also have to set up the option (additional menus, translations, etc.), and then you have to test the whole game with both options. The more things you make optional, the more different combinations you have to test; up to twice as many combinations, in fact, for each thing you make optional.

It gets even worse if the option is as fundamental as something like the cockpit. Even if the cockpit were just eye-candy, you'd have to make sure that all aspects of the game worked and performed correctly with both a full-screen view of space and a partial view. But of course in this case the cockpit isn't just eye-candy, it's an integral part of the game, with the parts of the UI built into it. Making that optional would require the game to function with two separate interface paradigms, significantly increasing the cost for design, development and testing.

Why should you care about making things optional being an expensive way of doing things? Well, cost and time are pretty much the same thing in development tems, both of which are finite, so those resources would, by definition, be prevented from being used on other game features. Worse still, for any given player, at least some of those resources would be wasted, because they would be spent on an option that they wouldn't be using; in fact in practice for most players, all the effort put into the non-default option would be wasted. In essence you are shooting yourself in the foot somewhat by suggesting that a feature you want should be made optional; you are asking for the available resources to be spent on a feature you don't want, only for you to then switch it off, instead of on features you do want!

And this of course brings us back to the first point, which is that it is almost always better to make design decisions than to try to please everyone by making everything optional.

So i just think sticking to a non-HM with a transparent overlay would work best in most case. But that is just MY opinion.

Edit: Oh and i don't see eye to eye with "In fact I see one difference, which as I have said repeatedly is aesthetic rather than functional." To me, its a matter of functionality rather than aesthetics.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Virosa

[Gauddlike]

I agree and have used a similar argument against adding optional features many times.

My suggestion is not an optional feature however, it is a single feature that can be utilised in different ways by different players.

It would always work in the same way, the difference would be aesthetic only.

It could display an opaque full screen HM image, a completely transparent image with 'Alien Movement' in small letters, or somewhere in between.

No differences in function to be balanced or influences on players actions.

It could also allow multiple images to be used and cycled, in the same way that submaps are cycled by the game when generating a map.

[ladlon]

@Gauddlike: Agreed! That would (seemingly) work great. Plus, you can then create your own screens, if you want.

[Virosa]

Indeed. Tho i have to specify, when i mean HM, i mean blind, any variation of a HM where its transparent or allow to "see" through is what i refer to when saying non-HM.

Thing is, i suspect the reason of existing for the HM was in first place to hide things such as (cheap coding of) camera giving away hints that shouldn't be given. Now that we're in 2013... well, maybe doing everything old school isint that good.

I don't think proper sound and "what information you should and not should be able to gather from the enemy's turn" should be skimped. Recalcitrant dev or not.

[Gauddlike]

There have been threads suggesting everything from the isometric view to the turn based mechanic were too old school and should be replaced with full 3d or real time in order to be up to date.

You can't please everyone but I feel that if you are making an homage to an older game then it should be recognisable as such.

The HM screen to me is part of that along with the other iconic mechanics.

I do understand it is not for everyone though, hence the suggestion of selectable transparent images.

I agree that the sounds would be better if they were directional.

It is up to the devs though if the resources to look into the possibility are better spent on other features.

There is only a certain amount of cash that can be thrown at the game so working on a feature that may turn out to be impossible is likely to be lower priority than other features.

[ladlon]

Ya, like I said, that's the tough line with modernized versions of older games... How much do you stay faithful to the original design, and how much do you update/'improve'. I've been annoyed with many modernized games, like 3D versions of 2D platform games, etc... They only end up being faithful to the game in name and subject, as opposed to game mechanic.

Well, it's still being worked on, and is seen by the devs as still needing work. So, it might be improved, even with the current system in place. I"d be happy with just a quick cross dissolve between the HM screen and the gaming screen, to soften the transition (and slick it up a bit). The support of HM screens with alpha would be a huge improvement, too.

So far, the things I've commented on are still being worked on, which is great.

[Virosa]

Well a compromise could be... if the original xcom was a full screen blind and it was written "Hidden Movements" then you could do a more modern version, (more pratical) screen that is more of an overlay and still read "Hidden Movements".

I think this game was said to be "highly inspired by" i did not see "purposely simplified for the sake of being a clone to the original".

I think the only reasons to do the later is to please the nostalgia factor of people who played the original back then(whether its a good feature or not) and that is sadly a minority of the market this game will be threw in~

[Gauddlike]

Well I find the practicality and 'simplification' of the hidden movement screen to be highly subjective.

To simplify something you imply that it was more complicated originally then something was removed or degraded which is not the case.

I don't see how looking at a static image of a soldier doing nothing is an inherently more practical or complicated system, it is a purely aesthetic choice and personal preference.

Your suggestion of a compromise is not actually compromising on anything, it is just restating your own preference to do without the HM screen.

Copying the method used by Jagged Alliance in the 90's is not exactly modern either

Think this thread has run its course for me though, hopefully some new ideas can get added by people who have not joined in yet.

[ladlon]

Think this thread has run its course for me though, hopefully some new ideas can get added by people who have not joined in yet.

Yep, I'm good. Thanks for all your feedback!

[Virosa]

Well I find the practicality and 'simplification' of the hidden movement screen to be highly subjective.

To simplify something you imply that it was more complicated originally then something was removed or degraded which is not the case.

I don't see how looking at a static image of a soldier doing nothing is an inherently more practical or complicated system, it is a purely aesthetic choice and personal preference.

Your suggestion of a compromise is not actually compromising on anything, it is just restating your own preference to do without the HM screen.

Copying the method used by Jagged Alliance in the 90's is not exactly modern either

Think this thread has run its course for me though, hopefully some new ideas can get added by people who have not joined in yet.

No you're twisting what i'm saying, again. I'm saying to slam a HM screen in front was probably, originally, a simple and cheap skimp fix that was used as a short cut so there would be less coding to do to hide the fact that without that HM screen, you would be able to see camera movements revealing locations of enemies and such.

Its not just aesthetics, because removing the HM screen would mean more work.

Thank you.

[Gauddlike]

I don't know the reasons it was used in the original game but I reckon you are likely correct that it was done because they saw no other way to do it that maintained the secrecy they wanted.

The reason doesn't really matter to me though, it became a very iconic image no matter why it was done.

Unless you mean that it was done for that reason in Xenonauts in which case that is likely incorrect.

As the game was designed as an homage to the original it was probably done that way in order to keep that iconic part of the original.

No doubt it came in useful to hide things behind afterwards though

Only Chris would be able to answer that though.

[Virosa]

Indeed, i don't know why Chris did it, its prolly for the nostalgia factor. Still the principle remain removing the HM in Xenonaut would mean more work and i'll go with what choice he or whatever Dev makes. Xenonaut already has enough redeeming factors...

[Wobbles]

I find it amusing that this is one of the most discussed threads on the forum right now.

I have to say that personally, I see this as more than simple aesthetics -- the full screen switch is very jarring, and tends to break immersion. It is enough of a distraction to actually make the game less enjoyable. Although I acknowledge the nostalgia factor, I think this is plain and simply a bad UI feature, albeit an iconic one.

Look at how strongly some people reacted to the full screen 'start menu' switch in Windows 8 -- I think you'll see a similar set of thoughts here. For some people, that sudden overwhelming visual change really does have an effect -- it breaks you out of a mental flow state that make games like this addicting in the first place. That is probably where the huge differences of opinion are coming from.

For those of us that are wired that way, this goes beyond a simple "we think it would look better". It is more of a "please don't destroy our focus every 30 seconds -- it's exhausting".

[Xenomorph]

The planned hidden movement screen will not be a full screen, but an overlay taking just some screen space on the middle, so it might fit the need

I really don't care if it's full screen or not, if i can see everything that happens within my soldier's surroundings/FOV. It does make it more tense... but i do agree that we should have a couple choices.

[thothkins]

On first appearance, I'm not sure about the overlay approach. I liked the full screen, and I found it added to the tension & immersion, with little flashes of alien movement and sound, rather than detracted from it.

I'd possibly prefer one route or the other, but I'll really just need to see it at work I guess.