Another minimap request (Re: May 3 livestream)

That's pretty much exactly what the Minimap in the Orignal SupCom was that no one ever used because of Stratzoom.

Mike

And we can open multiple windows... wait a second... maybe we do have a minimap.

Well I still think it would be useful to be able to have a single view that wraps around a specific orbital body so that you can see the whole surface.

Is there a technical difference to wrapping a camera around a planet versus unwrapping the surface of a planet?
Would a 5-point perspective/fisheye camera be easy to do in the PA engine or would it have to be designed from the ground up?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LERyU-Y3m0

Edit:Found a little bit more relevant and trippy youtube vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQOJ3yCK8pI

It's nothing to do with wrapping / unwrapping being technically possible or not.

I really don't think people are understanding where I'm coming from here and apparently I lack the ability to get this concept across.

Why do we need units at all? Why not just play the game with icons all of the time? If you understand the answer to this question you'll understand why I'm not a fan of warping the gameplay surface to give you more strategic information. Especially when there are many other ways the problem can be solved.

I can't really wrap my head around the scope of what your are saying and turn it straight. But I guess I'll find out in the alpha or beta.
I guess I already perceive this with too much presupposition according to my view of interstellar combat.

Thanks a lot for your answer.

Definitely a matter of how you approach the issue, it's possible to have a bunch of unwrapped adjacent planet projections on your screen - just like it's possible to play FPS games with a 360 degree view. It doesn't look good and at the end of the day ruins the aesthetic and scope of the game. Instead of playing with units on a sphere you'll be playing on a rectangle with weird movement rules.

I'll take spheres with multiple or moving perspectives thanks.

Yeah. Coherent design is good. But I evoke the modding card.
If a modder wants to be able to wrap the camera around a donut to create a minimap then devs could just be like:
"Heres the code to change the camera. Good luck wrapping it around the donut and keeping the zoom functional. Knock yourself out!"
And which modders doesn't want to take on "bunch of unwrapped adjacent planet projections"?

can't disagree with that

To reiterate a point I've made before, the main concern is being able to see EVERYTHING at a glance. Strategic zoom was perfect for this, as it gave you that capability. But with a planet, you can only see a portion of the map no matter how you zoom out. And as I've pointed out before, multiple windows only becomes effective if you have a total of 3 per planet, minimum, which grants full vision coverage (and covers any edge-of-the-horizon issues.) Add to that multiple planets, and situational awareness can be challenging.

This is why some of us that are familiar with the glory of the strategic zoom are still apprehensive about the lack of a minimap. I'm all for waiting to see what solutions Uber has up its sleeve for this issue, and I'm aware it may not even be present until the beta. I don't mind waiting. I just don't want it to end up being a stopgap measure, like "Throw more windows at it!"

I used to use the mini map in supcom. Yes there was actually a mini map without having to open spit screen or a second monitor. Why did I use the mini map? No second screen on my laptop at LANs lol.

As to giving a mini map that can cover the whole planet, where is the fun in that?

I used to verse a friend who played white on snow maps so you couldn't tell the difference between his 75% map dominance and the snow. He had so much intel in your base at all times that 1 look at the mini map (at LANs) or his second screen would give away any counter strategy you tried to develop.

I like the idea of the Spherical maps. If he is on the same planet as you he can only see 1 half of the sphere from his second screen and actually has to move his map around to prevent surprize attacks.

I would still like for an option to have a mini map for when 1, your too poor for a second screen or 2 you are at a LAN. Even if the mini is cartographic and only shows you half of the planet its configured to.

You argue against the full-map visibility in your own post though - as soon as you scale to more than one planet, full strat zoom & mini maps no longer give you the ability to see everything at a glance.

Which to me says that we need to look more carefully at why you want a full map zoom, and take the parts that are important and display those to the user.


My one question for Neutrino:

Do you have any indication yet on the performance hit multiple windows will cause while playing? I'm wondering if you're targeting 1-3 windows, or something more like 10+ windows.

likely depends on the map but I'm curious too

Wouldn't the performance hit depend on your PC?

What you should be asking is how much more demand is the simulation going to put on a CPU and/or GPU should I open +1 viewports, +2 viewports and so on.

To which the answer will be: There isn't an answer yet... 'Coz it's not optimised.

---

Neutrino, Thank you. You just made my day

I say no such thing. I merely pointed out the challenges that a spherical map presents and how this is increased due to the fact that there are multiple planets involved. A solution like adding more windows just won't cut it.

We have seen examples of minimaps posted on these forums that would seem to work well. (Someone posted Spore-style minimaps in a stack, which I thought had merit as a design starting point.)

A solution will need to take these factors into account if it is to result in a good awareness system.

What's still making my sides split is that many people here are assuming that Neutrino wants you to have near omniscient knowledge and awareness over the planet you're on, or the planetary system combined with the ability to be nearly omnipresent within the same bounds.

I've seen no such hints from his posts.

As he's been saying... if you want to be relying on the minimap you might as well be playing with symbols, icons and blanket textures, rather than unit models, high fidelity animations and high quality textures.

When the minimap can show you everything you "need" to play it cheapens the hard work that Uber have done on the small scale. From what Neutrino has been hinting at, they're developing a NEW system to relay information to you that doesn't rely on a minimap.

I'm anxious to hear more Jon. *Sits down expectantly*

nanolathe said it well

to borrow from an earlier post - you can make FPS games with a 360 degree field of view, more field of view doesn't necessarily make for a better game though.

sorry, I don't get it. a minimap has never made me appreciate the visuals less. I know that's the point neutrino put forth recently, but it seems more to be a problem with the way strategic zoom seems to be used? I have to admit right here that I have never played supreme commander, and the only thing I really know about strategic zoom is from watching some youtube videos and from how people are talking about it here. from those, it seems people are playing almost entirely from strategic zoom, only looking at the actual graphics "when there's lots of explosions"?

in my experience, minimaps are useless for anything other than getting an overview and quick navigation - for everything else you need the main view. so how is the minimap detracting from the prettiness?

Because it would detract from something new that Uber is working on.

And again, you're assuming that Neutrino wants you to have an ever-present overview.

---

Does no one here actually WANT the game Neutrino is making? Isn't he the expert with over 15 years game development experience? Isn't he the one with the team of programmers and artists behind him?

As far as I can tell he never promised minimaps in the Kickstarter pitch so acting all self-entitled and that he's committing something akin to a sin against RTS's by removing it isn't a tenable stance to take.

Let Jon get on with his work and when he shows you the alternative that he's made for you, then you can start claiming that you "need" a minimap. Until then I think it's best for us all if we'd stop getting so many threads that are trying to pick apart the game before it's even woven together.
M'kay?

QFT

actually, if you re-read the post, I'm not assuming anything, at all, simply trying to understand the argument as it was presented.

I would hope the same exercise would also convince you that the amount of self-entitlement was at the lowest possible value. I was simply asking why the existence of a minimap would make me appreciate the pretty graphics less. Specifically the pretty grahics that were referenced in neutrino's post (units).
you're inventing a new phantom graphic which the minimap is detracting from. I agree, there's a phantom-graphic-shaped hole in the information that Uber has released on this topic, but I do think you're answering my question with guesswork.

On a different note, nanolathe, how is it that, despite the fact that you are BY FAR the most prolific writer on the topic of strategic overviews in PA, I would most probably be able to skip all your posts in all discussions on the subject and still not miss out on any actual related-to-the-topic ideas? you come across as a guy with a megaphone on a bus, shouting: "STOP TALKING". I agree, you are quite definitely repeating the general message as put forth by uber representatives, but it seems that is also all you are doing? in what way do you feel that this behavior improves the general tone and "feel" of this community?