Readability of units.

I am not. I really mean it. I would play the game with symbols only. In fact I basically do, I rarely look at anything but symbols when playing FA.

Ok so you willingly rob yourself of the joy of seeing a battle. Don't talk **** about people who want to see the battle then.

This.

There are literally a thousand things happening at once during a game of FA; while you're actually playing you don't have time to sit back and admire pretty pictures. The graphics exist for the benefit of everyone but the people playing the game.

Funny how I always manage to get a good look then.

You are probably just not playing fast enough.
Sure while playing a big game of thermo players have lots of time to focus on watching stuff. But in a 1v1 on mid sized map? no way

I like watching big battles, but not while playing. Replays need graphics, that's for sure. But while playing I have better things to do than to watch graphical effects.

Icons are FAR more efficient at giving a player a quick read than unitmodels. At ANY distance. That's just how it is.
I do understand that there is a huge faction of people who like watching units crush each other even while playing. I accept that. But I ask you to please also accept that the "readability of units" is perfectly solved by icons. Pretty graphics are inherently hard to read.

Judging by your posts you do not in fact understand that.

I, as a complete noob (that is, I have never played online and would probably suck a lot), prefer icons over units, too.

It's a false dichotomy though. But icons are a better way of identifying units than looking at their models is, no matter the circumstances.

I don't think you understand what you are arguing. You're arguing that units and projectiles shouldn't be readable at close range because you, personally, you alone, are able to read them at a distance with icons.

false dichotomy but obviously if you're playing well you will be handling everything through strategic zoom - and units are too small to effectively read at such distance

I am not arguing that they shouldn't be readable. I am just saying that icons are always better to read than 3d models of units. That just how it is.

You wouldn't be saying that if it wasn't supposed to be a counterargument.

And if it isnt why are you dragging things off topic?

Nobody is argueing that? Could you backtrack and show me (us?) what you're argueing and who's argueing against that, then...?

This isn't a thread about the merits of strategic icons, it's a thread about the readability of the graphics up close. You present strategic icons as an alternative to that.

And if not you're posting in the wrong thread with the wrong impression of what this context means.

Readability could definitely use a boost, but I think that sort of stuff is for alpha to sort out.

Oh, and squares. Placing squares on a round world is awkward. Perhaps it would be better to use more circular things?

Not sure if trolling. :?

How did you miss that? :?:

Yes I sometimes sound a bit aggressive to deliver my arguments.
Even though your bold marking is kinda funny. You dotted the most important part. My intention with this sentence was to indicate that projectiles are by far less important than units. The ensuing rather OT discussion was a result of bmb jumping on my mention of icons for the projectiles and me going on my usual "strat icons are awesome"-trail.

The OP did ask for ways to make units better readable. In my mind THE way to do this are icons. They might try, will try and are tying to improved readability without them, but icons will always be superior.

Only 1 out of 100 times have I actually seen a nuke when compared to it's icon.

Generally the readability only matters at the strategic level, as at the tactical level units should generally be alright at being all rounders for a short battle.

Like the AA missile unit, all-rounder at the tactical level, but at the strategic level the distinction would be much more important.

Nah, I got what I wanted. I disliked the white flashes for explosions in SupCom and we got great volumetric looking explosions (even in its early stage) in the livestream now. :mrgreen:


Honestly, the close up view just has to look as good as possible. If it makes looking at things hard, I don't really care. As has been said, strategic icons, strategic icons and again strategic icons. If I want to see whats going on, those tell me whats going on. If I zoom in close I want to see nice explosions and other great effects.

Well nukes are kind of a special case they go up real high and you can't really zoom in on them. You can still catch them when they launch though, not to mention projectile tracking allows you to see it up close.

And perhaps the most annoying thing about this is the fact that the icon never goes away even if it's right up in your face. Mostly because icons render based on your altitude and not based on how small the unit/projectile appears as it probably should.

WIP Uber has yet to settle on the final options.