Like I said, I don't care. I just think that the people, that this feature was designed for in the first place, are not in this debate. The barely discernible wall of text is not what I would offer to the new player.
As I said, I'm not too fussed about this as I could (hopefully) turn it off, but almost all of the discussed options look overly complicated to me. It's supposed to be a quick glance thing to help you quickly decide if the selected item is better than what you have equipped. Any superfluous information takes away from its function.
Also, here's the SoD draft with the added spikes that was suggested earlier:
@Pecca you are spot on. We will have trouble finding a solution we like here because it is not aimed at us. Ultimately, we need some people new to BG to tell us exactly what they need really...
@kjeron makes a good point about the damage. Yeah, min to max damage makes sense. Having it as 1d8 or 2d4 tells you if there's a curve bell or flat division, but that's not too important. I would remove the spaces in between (adjacent to the - character), because the numbers at the top don't have it, either, and it would save some space.
I really like @Danathion 's suggestion of placing the arrows behind the numbers, and showing if it improves or decreases. It keeps the information together, rather than having the numbers on the far right side, and the indicator of it being an improvement or downgrade on the left side. This also negates the ambigiousness of the + and - signs!
With the arrows being there, I don't really care if the lines are colored or not. Colored in addition to the arrows could be a little bit overdone, I dunno.
More senseful numbers at the top (currently has a regular longsword and medium shield equipped):
@Pecca brought up multiple options for the scroll box, 3 as a working maximum, this would add another toggle but what if we propose simple *and* advanced item comparisons? Pecca's instantaneous option and the text breakdown?
is there anything else the scroll box could be used for as one of those options that would be more beneficial than the choice of comparisons?
I dunno about Pecca's example. First off, it changes the layout, replacing part of the textbox by boxes that contain numbers, which just doesn't feel smooth.
Then, it's flat numbers, that don't say all that much (only color to indicate an improvement or downgrade, have to calculate difference by hand, not clear if that's when you equip it to main or hoffhand).
If combined with the detailed information, it has a chance of pushing the detailed information off the bottom end of the text box.
I dunno about Pecca's example. First off, it changes the layout, replacing part of the textbox by boxes that contain numbers, which just doesn't feel smooth.
Then, it's flat numbers, that don't say all that much (only color to indicate an improvement or downgrade, have to calculate difference by hand, not clear if that's when you equip it to main or hoffhand).
If combined with the detailed information, it has a chance of pushing the detailed information off the bottom end of the text box.
to be clear my question is about 2 separate optional comparison screens.
Well, the biggest problem of the proposed solution is that it compares current values lined up horizontally and possible values lined up vertically. There is no simple connection between them, that's why it doesn't work by glance. You need time and focus to line them up, thus defeating the point of instantaneous comparison.
As a person who doesn’t like to have to pay to much attention to all the exact numbers, I was surprised at how @Thels last suggestion struck me so positively. It felt instantly intuitive. I read the information across and it instantly made sense. Most of the combinations that I’ve seen haven’t done that. They made me unscramble them first to pick out the information.
That probably doesn’t mean much to you numbers guys, but I thought I’d mention it as it made me think that having it laid out like that might be easy for others to understand as well. I wonder if it would be easier for new people to understand too. (shrug)
@Ravenslight: In all honesty, it was @Danathion 's idea. I just removed some spaces and changed the numbers at the top to actually match the comparison numbers.
@Pecca: The idea is that people don't need to compare it to the numbers at the top. They can see by the green and red arrows with the number behind them what improves and what decreases.
As @Thels said it isn't a comparison of top against bottom so they don't need to be aligned.
You can view it in several ways...
Very basic: count the number of up/downs (green/reds) to see if overall it is better, and in which hand it is better. Basic: Then, look at the numbers on the right to see by how much it improves stuff. Complicated: Then, compare stats that are better vs those that are worse (eg is the trade off in AC worth the improvement in APR). Very Complicated: Then, line-by-line analyse the stat changes and your new numbers to dig into the numbers more directly.
The advantage is that depending on how 'into' the numbers you are, or how familiar you are with the game overall, you can stop at the level which is right for you AND it's still providing beneficial information that is practical and allows decisions to be made.
As @Thels said it isn't a comparison of top against bottom so they don't need to be aligned.
You can view it in several ways...
Very basic: count the number of up/downs (green/reds) to see if overall it is better, and in which hand it is better. Basic: Then, look at the numbers on the right to see by how much it improves stuff. Complicated: Then, compare stats that are better vs those that are worse (eg is the trade off in AC worth the improvement in APR). Very Complicated: Then, line-by-line analyse the stat changes and your new numbers to dig into the numbers more directly.
The advantage is that depending on how 'into' the numbers you are, or how familiar you are with the game overall, you can stop at the level which is right for you AND it's still providing beneficial information that is practical and allows decisions to be made.
I like this explanation @Mr2150, people will get out of it what they understand and hopefully it will help new players dig into the stats.
I've messed around with it a little more. First, I swapped the "Longsword -> Longsword +1" example by a "Longsword -> Bastard Sword +1" example, assuming the same proficiencies. The average damage is half a point higher, so we should look and see if we want this .5 added at the back.
Secondly, I'm not too fan of the double header, so rather than specifying the weapon name and then equip to main or offhand, we just add main or off hand at the end of the weapon name. This should only need to be shown for onehanded weapons and rings. Other items would simply show the item name.
Thirdly, I've used the entire width available. Is it too far apart now? It probably gives more room to longwindy languages like Polish, but if there's too much of a gap between the types and the values, it may start to be annoying to read...
(I tossed all three of them into a new image, but they can be judged separately.
Already right after posting it bugs me that it uses "Main Hand" and "Mainhand". Same for offhand. We should probably be consisted. Space or no space?
I feel like (2-1) might be more confusing to new players, though it is technically more accurate. As for mainhand vs main hand, do we know what the game currently uses? I'd vote for consistency.
Other than that, I think this layout looks pretty good.
What if the compared item gave you -1 min damage and +2 max damage? You can't do damage ranges there. Averages are the way to go.
for consistency we'd need to change damage to an average in the icon box?
No, I wouldn't want to make that sacrifice. Especially for something I probably won't even use.
I think we'd need to try for consistency. I'm okay with average damage displayed on the inventory screen and getting the range from the full item description.
Comments
Also, here's the SoD draft with the added spikes that was suggested earlier:
@kjeron makes a good point about the damage. Yeah, min to max damage makes sense. Having it as 1d8 or 2d4 tells you if there's a curve bell or flat division, but that's not too important. I would remove the spaces in between (adjacent to the - character), because the numbers at the top don't have it, either, and it would save some space.
I really like @Danathion 's suggestion of placing the arrows behind the numbers, and showing if it improves or decreases. It keeps the information together, rather than having the numbers on the far right side, and the indicator of it being an improvement or downgrade on the left side. This also negates the ambigiousness of the + and - signs!
With the arrows being there, I don't really care if the lines are colored or not. Colored in addition to the arrows could be a little bit overdone, I dunno.
More senseful numbers at the top (currently has a regular longsword and medium shield equipped):
At a glance I can see it improves things if I put it in my main hand, and it improves APR if I put it in my offhand (with a cost to THACO and AC).
I can see by how much, and I can see what my new numbers would be.
@Pecca brought up multiple options for the scroll box, 3 as a working maximum, this would add another toggle but what if we propose simple *and* advanced item comparisons? Pecca's instantaneous option and the text breakdown?
is there anything else the scroll box could be used for as one of those options that would be more beneficial than the choice of comparisons?
Then, it's flat numbers, that don't say all that much (only color to indicate an improvement or downgrade, have to calculate difference by hand, not clear if that's when you equip it to main or hoffhand).
If combined with the detailed information, it has a chance of pushing the detailed information off the bottom end of the text box.
That probably doesn’t mean much to you numbers guys, but I thought I’d mention it as it made me think that having it laid out like that might be easy for others to understand as well. I wonder if it would be easier for new people to understand too. (shrug)
@Pecca: The idea is that people don't need to compare it to the numbers at the top. They can see by the green and red arrows with the number behind them what improves and what decreases.
Great idea @Danathion
But it was seeing it that put it in perspective for me @Thels
As @Thels said it isn't a comparison of top against bottom so they don't need to be aligned.
You can view it in several ways...
Very basic: count the number of up/downs (green/reds) to see if overall it is better, and in which hand it is better.
Basic: Then, look at the numbers on the right to see by how much it improves stuff.
Complicated: Then, compare stats that are better vs those that are worse (eg is the trade off in AC worth the improvement in APR).
Very Complicated: Then, line-by-line analyse the stat changes and your new numbers to dig into the numbers more directly.
The advantage is that depending on how 'into' the numbers you are, or how familiar you are with the game overall, you can stop at the level which is right for you AND it's still providing beneficial information that is practical and allows decisions to be made.
Secondly, I'm not too fan of the double header, so rather than specifying the weapon name and then equip to main or offhand, we just add main or off hand at the end of the weapon name. This should only need to be shown for onehanded weapons and rings. Other items would simply show the item name.
Thirdly, I've used the entire width available. Is it too far apart now? It probably gives more room to longwindy languages like Polish, but if there's too much of a gap between the types and the values, it may start to be annoying to read...
(I tossed all three of them into a new image, but they can be judged separately.
Already right after posting it bugs me that it uses "Main Hand" and "Mainhand". Same for offhand. We should probably be consisted. Space or no space?
I think 1.5 might be confusing as it doesn't explain it is an average...
P.S. if Polish is longwindy is English shortwindy?
As for mainhand vs main hand, do we know what the game currently uses? I'd vote for consistency.
Other than that, I think this layout looks pretty good.
(+2) - (+1)
It takes up more space, yes, but it has a benefit when the change might be something like: (-1) - (+4) for example.
Equipped: (1d8, Longsword), +5(bonus): 6-13
If only one changes:(2d4, Bastard Sword), +5(bonus): If both changed:(1d4+3, Warhammer +2), +5(bonus):