RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames

Message

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (6/15/2007 11:10:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Incy can't you just have the "event" set a flag, and then when the correct time in sequence of play comes, the game engine checks the status of the flag? Yes, that is what I meant by splitting this US Entry Action into 2 parts: (I) the Japanese player makes the decision and (II) the consequences of that decision are implemented later. I could have the implementation delayed until just after US Entry in the End of Turn sequence. I think that does what Patrice wants, in that the US player does not gain the benefit of the associated die roll for US Entry until then, nor can he 'undo' the Action during the same turn by choosing to Reopen the Burma Road. I still find having the decision (part I) locked into the sequence of play (during the lending phase) desirable, because it serves as a reminder to the Japanese player and, more importantly, I do not need code to monitor whether the Japanese player has just decided (in the middle of who knows what) that he wants to Close the Burma Road. I think that you're right, and that it is probably the best way to do this. Congratulations ! [&o]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (6/15/2007 12:15:02 PM)
Eventually we work our way around to solutions for these little things. ======================= This week I am gathering into one source code module the disparate pieces of code concerning DOW. Two days a go I had this epiphany about how game phases should be coded. Instead of having a simple variable record the current phase, there should be an entire 'Object' (as in object oriented programming) for each phase. Each phase/object should have initialization, process, and termination routines as well as associated variables just used during the phase. For the DOW Phase, there are subphases, so I added another routine for changing from one DOW subphase to the next. I have only implemented this structure for the DOW phase, though it is how it should be done for all the phases in the game. When I get around to the code for declaring Vichy France, I will apply the same structure (the Vichy France Phase has quite a few subphases). I don't know if it is worth the bother to transform all the phases into Objects - if the code works, I'll leave it alone. But when the code is confusing, this transformation into an Object certainly clarifies everything (that has been my experience with the DOW code).

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (6/15/2007 7:58:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I have only implemented this structure for the DOW phase, though it is how it should be done for all the phases in the game. When I get around to the code for declaring Vichy France, I will apply the same structure (the Vichy France Phase has quite a few subphases). I don't know if it is worth the bother to transform all the phases into Objects - if the code works, I'll leave it alone. But when the code is confusing, this transformation into an Object certainly clarifies everything (that has been my experience with the DOW code). For the Vichy code, you'll have to write it from scratch I believe as Vichy was not implemented in CWiF [:D].

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (6/15/2007 9:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I have only implemented this structure for the DOW phase, though it is how it should be done for all the phases in the game. When I get around to the code for declaring Vichy France, I will apply the same structure (the Vichy France Phase has quite a few subphases). I don't know if it is worth the bother to transform all the phases into Objects - if the code works, I'll leave it alone. But when the code is confusing, this transformation into an Object certainly clarifies everything (that has been my experience with the DOW code). For the Vichy code, you'll have to write it from scratch I believe as Vichy was not implemented in CWiF [:D]. There actually is a lot of code (~1000 lines) related to Vichy France already in the program. I will start by making the declaration of Vichy France a Phase Object with a fixed set of subphases. Then I will transfer the existing code into those subphases. For example, there is code related to: returning French units not in French possessions to base, rolling dice to determine which French possessions go Vichy versus Free French, selecting the new home country, and so forth.

lomyrin -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (6/15/2007 10:30:03 PM)
There were only a few aspects of the VIchy stuff that was not implemented or functioning correctly in the latest CWiF. Lars

c92nichj -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (6/18/2007 12:07:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lomyrin There were only a few aspects of the VIchy stuff that was not implemented or functioning correctly in the latest CWiF. Lars I had a lot of issues with Vichy when playing the CWiF version.

lomyrin -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (6/18/2007 2:25:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: c92nichj quote: ORIGINAL: lomyrin There were only a few aspects of the VIchy stuff that was not implemented or functioning correctly in the latest CWiF. Lars I had a lot of issues with Vichy when playing the CWiF version. Among the problems were how to place the surviving French units inside Vichy and that the Vichy units were later free to leave Metro Vichy into Occupied France etc. Also the Dakar Mil showed up in the CW force pool. The rolls for whether they would fight or not when facing Allied units did not fucntion. Lars

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (6/18/2007 5:01:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lomyrin quote: ORIGINAL: c92nichj quote: ORIGINAL: lomyrin There were only a few aspects of the VIchy stuff that was not implemented or functioning correctly in the latest CWiF. Lars I had a lot of issues with Vichy when playing the CWiF version. Among the problems were how to place the surviving French units inside Vichy and that the Vichy units were later free to leave Metro Vichy into Occupied France etc. Also the Dakar Mil showed up in the CW force pool. The rolls for whether they would fight or not when facing Allied units did not fucntion. Lars Thanks for the information. ========== In going through the DOW subphases I have had to change over half of that code to bring it into line with the sequence of play as defined in RAW.

c92nichj -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (6/19/2007 4:00:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lomyrin Among the problems were how to place the surviving French units inside Vichy and that the Vichy units were later free to leave Metro Vichy into Occupied France etc. Also the Dakar Mil showed up in the CW force pool. The rolls for whether they would fight or not when facing Allied units did not fucntion. Lars I also had issues with liberation on france and vichy minors

dale1066 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (6/23/2007 11:42:28 AM)
Re Bugs in CWif code for Vichy France, saved Vichy build points in metropolitan france would not be captured but would appear to be available to the free french player in their resources production tab.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/2/2007 2:48:14 AM)
I have been looking into the player interface for playing over the internet. One thing that I think is required is a little information form/screen that lets the player know what everyone else is doing. Here is a mock up. Though what I am showing here is large, in the program it would be quite small. That is why I have abbreviated the country names (instead of using flags). I want as small a footprint on the screen real estate as possible. The top of the form would name the current phase. The active side would get the yellow background and the inactive side the gray background. During production, all the major powers would be active - yellow background. The words to the left of the country abbreviations display status and when there are multiple subphases, it shows the name of the subphase (abbreviated). I was thinking of 5 players when I made up this example. The China/USA player has finished the reinforcement phase for China and is currently placing the USA reinforcements on the map. The France/USSR player started with the USSR and is currently removing air units. Once that is done he will go onto France. The CW player is still pondering which units to scrap and the other two players (Germany/Vichy France & Italy/Japan) are waiting for their turn to go through the reinforcement phase. I could add additional information, such as which players are playing which major powers, but that doesn't seem necessary. Once a game has started, everyone will know pretty quickly who is playing which countries. I put Vichy France at the bottom of the form so it will be easy to lop it off when Vichy France doesn't exist. Comments? [image]local://upfiles/16701/8D860F4F6E2F4E3F8A2FF6FA318D971D.jpg[/image]

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/2/2007 9:15:26 AM)
Good. Probably this form can be called from the place in the status bar where the game is stating which phase / step you are in.

wfzimmerman -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/2/2007 5:35:55 PM)
I am not sure I understand what the status means here. Does this mean that MWIF is running for Internet mode for Allies but not Axis? It would be nice to see some sort of indication of whether players are connected to the internet and awake ;-) -- or at least to distinguish between players who have the MWIF process running on their pCs and those who don't currently.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/2/2007 7:56:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman I am not sure I understand what the status means here. Does this mean that MWIF is running for Internet mode for Allies but not Axis? It would be nice to see some sort of indication of whether players are connected to the internet and awake ;-) -- or at least to distinguish between players who have the MWIF process running on their pCs and those who don't currently. Good point. I will add a small circle colored green if the major power is on-line and a small red square if they are not. Status colors indicate whether the player is currently making decision for the major power. Most decisions are made by a single major power and if you are playing several, then only one of them is Active at any point in time. When a side is making a decision, that is the responsibility of the team leader for the side; therefore just the team leader will be Active when a side is making a decision (e.g., asking for a reroll for initiative).

Incy -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/3/2007 2:19:19 AM)
A ping feature would be very nice. If you want a players attention, press a ping button (the little active/inactive status circle?), and the players computer should will make a ping noise (or a windows alert could pop up or something). This will be very useful if I spend 8 minutes doing something (land moves, for instance) and my opponent gets a bit bored and does something else. Ping should have a separate volume setting from the game music!

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/3/2007 3:07:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Incy A ping feature would be very nice. If you want a players attention, press a ping button (the little active/inactive status circle?), and the players computer should will make a ping noise (or a windows alert could pop up or something). This will be very useful if I spend 8 minutes doing something (land moves, for instance) and my opponent gets a bit bored and does something else. Ping should have a separate volume setting from the game music! Rather than a sound, or in addition to a sound, perhaps a text message? Many players turn the sound off physically (i.e., at the speakers). I cuold make the message blink too. I understand the problem you are describing but would like a more general solution. Perhaps a short list of standard messages? Your turn! I'm done! (for informing your teammates) ??? others ???

Zorachus99 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/3/2007 5:57:37 AM)
Open a window that grabs focus. That way if I'm using a full screen program, I'll see an alert appear above what I'm doing. That and make the feature un-spammable, like a 30 second timer.

wfzimmerman -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/3/2007 5:04:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Incy A ping feature would be very nice. If you want a players attention, press a ping button (the little active/inactive status circle?), and the players computer should will make a ping noise (or a windows alert could pop up or something). This will be very useful if I spend 8 minutes doing something (land moves, for instance) and my opponent gets a bit bored and does something else. Ping should have a separate volume setting from the game music! Rather than a sound, or in addition to a sound, perhaps a text message? Many players turn the sound off physically (i.e., at the speakers). I cuold make the message blink too. I understand the problem you are describing but would like a more general solution. Perhaps a short list of standard messages? Your turn! I'm done! (for informing your teammates) ??? others ??? How about: The rules clearly allow this. You're ahead, so I resign. Prepare to die! That should pretty much cover it. ;-)

wfzimmerman -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/3/2007 5:44:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 Open a window that grabs focus. That way if I'm using a full screen program, I'll see an alert appear above what I'm doing. That and make the feature un-spammable, like a 30 second timer. I hate windows that steal focus. See http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2006/04/24/prevent-windows-apps-from-stealing-focus/

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/3/2007 8:18:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman quote: ORIGINAL: Zorachus99 Open a window that grabs focus. That way if I'm using a full screen program, I'll see an alert appear above what I'm doing. That and make the feature un-spammable, like a 30 second timer. I hate windows that steal focus. Well, if you are playing a game of MWIF over the internet, I would think that being informed that it is your turn to move would not be an inconvenience. That's even if you were in the middle of donig something on the side. But if I am wrong, it is easy enough to make the message grabbing focus optional. Though I prefer to keep the number of optional aspects of the player interface within reason.

Incy -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/3/2007 9:12:50 PM)
It isn't the application that steals focus, it's the other player that "taps you" to let you know you're up. If you don't like it, let the other player know! A popup is nice, but doesn't allow me to go away from the computer. I would like to be able to turn off regular sound, but turn up the volume of a "ping", so that I'll know it's my turn even if doing something else in the next room.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/4/2007 4:10:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Incy It isn't the application that steals focus, it's the other player that "taps you" to let you know you're up. If you don't like it, let the other player know! A popup is nice, but doesn't allow me to go away from the computer. I would like to be able to turn off regular sound, but turn up the volume of a "ping", so that I'll know it's my turn even if doing something else in the next room. I didn't mean to imply No to the ping. I just want it to be supplemented with a visual in case the speakers are off (or the player doesn't have speakers[X(]).

amwild -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/4/2007 6:33:52 AM)
Why not just allow the player to set how messages from other players are brought to his attention? If you want noise, ask for it, if you want popups, ask for that. There is also the possibility of a system tray icon that can change state as an alert, and tooltips that appear attached to the system tray icon.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/4/2007 7:40:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amwild Why not just allow the player to set how messages from other players are brought to his attention? If you want noise, ask for it, if you want popups, ask for that. There is also the possibility of a system tray icon that can change state as an alert, and tooltips that appear attached to the system tray icon. Ok. Given your advice, I am now thinking of an indicator (button with text?) that says "New Message" or some such. Clicking on it would bring up a list of messages received that have not yet been viewed. The indicator would change color(s)/shape depending on its status.

c92nichj -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/4/2007 9:37:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: amwild Why not just allow the player to set how messages from other players are brought to his attention? If you want noise, ask for it, if you want popups, ask for that. There is also the possibility of a system tray icon that can change state as an alert, and tooltips that appear attached to the system tray icon. Ok. Given your advice, I am now thinking of an indicator (button with text?) that says "New Message" or some such. Clicking on it would bring up a list of messages received that have not yet been viewed. The indicator would change color(s)/shape depending on its status. I thinnk this kind of functionality allready exists in any of the messenger product out there, Yahoo, MSN, Skype, ICQ comes to mind, whiuch I assume that you will be able to run in the background. Let Steve focus on developing MWIF not a chat/messaging product.

composer99 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/4/2007 7:04:44 PM)
One cannot assume that one's MWiF opponents will have any messenger product (or that they would want to get one, either). I imagine that any messaging module attached to MWiF would be exclusively used either to tell players that it is their turn to play or make some sort of decision, or to inform them of the outcome of a battle or other key in-game event. It hardly needs to be used to pass on idle chitchat or trash talk.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/4/2007 9:53:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 One cannot assume that one's MWiF opponents will have any messenger product (or that they would want to get one, either). I imagine that any messaging module attached to MWiF would be exclusively used either to tell players that it is their turn to play or make some sort of decision, or to inform them of the outcome of a battle or other key in-game event. It hardly needs to be used to pass on idle chitchat or trash talk. It is very easy to send simple text messages between players. Code to do that was in CWIF and I retained it in MWIF. The program is already sending thousands of messages (as simple text strings) between players for game events so sending a personal text message/string is trivial. The difficulty arises when bells and whistles start to get attached to the simple text message. I intend to provide some of those (e.g., a history of messages received/sent and the ability to go back and reread earlier messages). However, there are a lot of additional features possible - it could evolve to a complete file directory or database system. c92nichj was correct in reminding me to not let this get out of hand with feature creep. That said, I still would like to hear ideas from people on commnications between players and I might cherry pick a few of them to include in MWIF product 1.

Jimm -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/5/2007 2:04:27 AM)
An in game way for all the members of a side to share plans & strategy is always good, especially if, as you suggest, you would have a message history to go back and review.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/5/2007 3:45:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jimm An in game way for all the members of a side to share plans & strategy is always good, especially if, as you suggest, you would have a message history to go back and review. Yes. Although I think all I will provide on that is the ability to direct a text message to multiple people at once. The choices for addressees would be: everyone, everyone on my side, specific player(s). If people want to exchange JPGs, they would have to do that outside the game.

Jimm -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (7/5/2007 9:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Jimm An in game way for all the members of a side to share plans & strategy is always good, especially if, as you suggest, you would have a message history to go back and review. Yes. Although I think all I will provide on that is the ability to direct a text message to multiple people at once. The choices for addressees would be: everyone, everyone on my side, specific player(s). If people want to exchange JPGs, they would have to do that outside the game. Quite so, or cc by tick boxes perhaps.

Page: << < prev 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.65625