Mini-map idea

As far as I understand PA aims to help the player with an UI as powerful as possible. So I would generally assume, that UBER will do anything do make it easy to get an overview of what is happening.
So let's just wait for now. If it sucks in Alpha/Beta UBER will be told so and fix it.

I think for an objective discussion of a functional feature fulfilling a role that mini maps played in past games, we are still missing still a few facts.
While discussions on content driven stuff like units/AI/economics etc can thrive on what oneself wants to appear in a game, a mini map or something similar is derived almost completely from the requirements in terms of usability and ergonomics of certain game mechanics. No one wants a mini map just because it's pretty and shiny.

What actual requirements actually appear, will probably depend on how the multiple planet stuff is going to work. One might have actually test the game handling to derive at a halfway sensible position. Starting from the short single planet demo view we have seen so far and extrapolating with past experiences doesn't necessarily lead to an optimal result.

Aside from that, I doubt the devs are oblivious to the fact that players probably want/need more information than the around 100 degree view of a single planet at one time. That doesn't mean that whatever solution they are thinking about is either complete or the final choice, or necessarily ready to share. But that's just my thinking, who knows.

The knee-jerk assumptions in this thread slay me, they really do.

I'd be more annoyed if I wasn't laughing my arse off.

LMAO. Awesome response man. Truly awesome response.

To summarise your current argument:

We shouldn't be allowed to talk about potential features of an unreleased game and mods to same ... because we've not played the released version?

Now I know I've got to have misinterpreted that, because truly no-one would try to make that argument.

I'll have to check back through the thread looking for some of those. Although I'm sure you're right and there are some.

Far from assuming anything. I'm trying to be as open as possible.
There have been some interesting suggestion as to how such data might be presented.

Specifically I'm thinking of the strategic icons visible through the planet from units on the other side, and also of the shaped camera lens.

My only issue with you nanolathe, is your *Jon said no mini-map... Therefore no. mini-map... Not ever. You won't need it. Stop talking about it. No not even for mods because it's too difficult and you won't need it* attitude.

You assume that Neutrino wants you to have omniscient knowledge of the whole sphere you're playing on for one

You are entirely correct. You misinterpreted.
You are indeed allowed to discuss minimaps all you like. You are not qualified to say whether they are a needed element however.

and I can refute anyone's claim that unwrapping is a suitable answer. Neutrino has said there will be no unwrapping.

I'm pretty sure that means he's not putting in code hooks for you to be able to mod it in easily... at all.

Neutrino is currently adamant that minimaps are NOT a make-or-break feature, hence they are not needed.
I'm going to trust the visionary coder over your stubborn assertions about "needs" any day rorybecker.

Yeah, I think of it in that way. Actually I don't think anyone have framed it in that way in any other thread. Changing the camera "lense" might be technically different from unwrapping a 3D surface to a 2D surface.
If you'd do it with raycasts it might even be easy but I know far too little about this to know how feasible or hard it is to do.

No I'm not. I'm assuming he's not against this information being available. That's not the same thing at all.

I'm also assuming to some extent that a lot of the information will be available to UI Mods anyway because a mod that can't access anything about the world\units etc isn't able to add much to a UI.

Over and above that, I'm pretty sure that the ChronoCam feature wouldn't work without this sort of data being available.

Or alternatively: Uber are just not doing it themselves.

I could read further into his sentence and say that his use of the word "probably" is further proof that he is unsure if we will be disappointed, because although Uber are not doing this, others might. Therefore he cannot be sure. The probability might come into it because those who like a mini-map might still be disappointed to find they had to download a plugin to use one.

See ... I can pull conjecture out of my *** too

You *appear* to be building your entire case on a the basis of single sentence which is open AFAIK to a fair degree of interpretation. Have you got something other than the previous quote to back this up.

I'm quite willing to believe that other evidence exists, I've just not seen it. If you could enlighten me to it's location, I'd appreciate it.

All you can draw from this single sentence without additional information, is that uber themselves have no intention of doing any unwrapping. There is no certainty that this means it will be prohibited or impossible for others to do.

Following your line of thought... anything that doesn't make the final game isn't needed and therefore is banned which means no modding community at all. Of course we know this will not be true, which leads me to think that possibly there is a flaw in your logic ?

Trusting Uber over me regarding their game. That much seems pretty reasonable

Although I don't recall saying that the game *needs* Mini-maps. I've suggested that they appear to be to only simple graphical way to achieve a full overview of a planet. I've said I'd like to have one. I've also asked others including yourself for suggestions of alternatives. Some of which have been IMO very clever out of the box theories

Stubborn assertions indeed. I'm so unreasonable

Very well, I'll agree to disagree.

I'm just relating information to you that I have heard directly from him and added to it with my own interpretation... as ANYONE would. I have not distorted any information gleaned from Uber. You're hearing things as I hear them. If you disagree with my interpretation I'm NOT arguing with you unless you provide further evidence to support your own standpoint.

Based on the knowledge I am aware of, from both that quote from Neutrino and 2 livestreams where the minimap idea has been asked about, Jon has been very dismissive of them. If you want more information I suggest you ask HIM about it, rather than wasting your time trying to argue on my interpretations vs your own.

I believe you'll be disappointed when Minimaps are not "a thing" in Planetary Annihilation and I will oppose their addition should the request be asked for AGAIN, especially during Alpha and Beta. I think the game will be more interesting without minimaps for reasons I have already stated.

Again, I'll agree to disagree with you, and no more; mostly because you're intent on arguing semantics and trying to discredit personal interpretation without actually providing ANY evidence of your own... and I vehemently dislike arguments of that nature. If you want to argue with me provide some form PROOF, as I have done, to back up your position. Otherwise your arguments and position hold no more water than a sieve.

I believe my interpretations, based on three separate incidents of Jon dismissing and deriding minimaps are therefore more correct than you countering with "well I don't think so".

Show me some proof that modding in minimaps is easy.
Show me some proof that Uber is supporting UI and HUD modification to the point of adding minimaps.
Show me some proof that Jon is actually pulling my leg with his consistant dismissive behaviour towards minimaps.

Then maybe we can have a dialogue in a scientific manner.

It's not actually any different, you're taking a 3d surface and putting it on a 2d surface, your screen, doesn't matter how you go about doing it, it just is a different form of projection. Different methods are going to have different problem,s but they all will, it'll just be a matter of how do you mitigate those problems.

To talk about it abstractly you are loosing information going from a 3D surface to a 2D surface, if you make some assumptions you can approximate what you lost, but you'll never be able to get exactly right. Do you loose observability in some areas, are distances not preserved, do you have discontinuities?

I'm betting Uber has some plan to try and deal with this that doesn't involve a minimap. If you think you have a good approach that uses a minimap then go ahead and make it. You don't have to make a full game, just something that demonstrates your idea. Mod the fan made PA engine to show it even.

All this can/can't/should/shouldn't talk is silly, if people want to try, let them, not like you can stop them. Trying to make uber change something, well you do have to prove first that they should, and I doubt just words are gonna do it (at least in this case).

Modding a "lense" doesn't sound easy if the engine doesn't support it.
What I think would work best is basically allowing customizing raycasting so that you can create any "lense" you want. Mm... Anyone know a game that uses different "lenses"?
What is even the correct terminology in game development?

Say you wanted to create a fisheye lens for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheye_lens

I'm not quite sure I understand the "wrapping a camera around a planet" idea. Is that not pretty much identical to any projection that results in a rectangular / oblong unwrapping, such as most of those shown in http://xkcd.com/977/ ?

A fisheye lens would be 5 point perspective.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TfknYfnabs
Done in Quake:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LERyU-Y3m0

Unwrapping a planet to a 2-D surface or wrapping the camera around the planet might have the same result but might be technically different.

Perhaps when you zoom out to where you can see the whole planet at the same time, there could be a LARGE icon for enemy unit groups of X number or more within X distance of eachother on the planet where these units are located.

I have seen games tackle the issue of minimaps without actually using a minimap, but instead clever use of strategic zoom. Perhaps it could be a RUSE-like system where when you zoom out far enough, it clumps groups of units up so you can move your mouse over them to get a little pop-up with whats in it in what numbers, like this:



In that, each stack of units has a general height corresponding to how many units are in the group and if you mouse over it, it displays small icons of each type of unit in it with a small xNUMBER to indicate how many of each. I could see this working on a very large view of the planet to get you information you might need about an army...

An idea for enemy units being sighted is to have a pannel in the corner of the screen that lists all of the units known to the player on the map similar to that of Sins of a Solar Empire, in which when an enemy enters your field of view, their icons will be on the top of that planet's section. One way to keep this managable would be to JUST have enemy units show up on this, so you could a overview of what planet the enemy is on. Perhaps clicking on a unit's icon can quickly take the camera there?



All of these ideas can easily be scaled to show the overall field of play, including multiple planets yet not actually be using a minimap or any form of a minimap.