If default dice are set attack 5 vs defend 8, should borders show as the white color during the game or as red meaning an attack disadvantage?  And if there is a border modifier to make it 5vs5 should the attack line show green or white?  This is an example of ENs Spy vs Spy, currently the 5vs8 (default) shows white, and the 5vs5 shows green (has modifier).  That could be how it is intended though, but it may seem less intuitive.

That makes sense to me.

asm wrote: That makes sense to me.

Which makes sense?

The way it works. White for default dice, green if the attack is boosted, red if the defense is.

I'm fine with that, as long as it's "defined" that the attack lines are to show border modifiers and not to show attack strength/odds.

Yertle wrote: I'm fine with that, as long as it's "defined" that the attack lines are to show border modifiers and not to show attack strength/odds.

isn't that how it is now? you got the colors to tell you there is a modifier. the window actually tells you what the dice being rolled are

weathertop wrote:

Yertle wrote: I'm fine with that, as long as it's "defined" that the attack lines are to show border modifiers and not to show attack strength/odds.

isn't that how it is now? you got the colors to tell you there is a modifier. the window actually tells you what the dice being rolled are

Yep.

Seems like we're all in agreement that the status quo is satisfactory, then.

Glad we sorted that out.

I agree.

I actually had a question that was related to this and was being all nice by searching back through past topics. Do I get a cookie?

Anyway I am aware of 5 different types of borders:

Default
Attack Only
Fortify Only
View Only
Artillery

Is this correct or are there any I am missing?

Currently the player only shows 'attack' borders, which I believe includes Default, Attack Only and Artillery borders. There is no differentiation between these Border types except when you mouse over and see the border type listed in the small popup window. There is also no way to see View Only and Fortify Only borders in the player.

Since the colors of the arrows are already used to indicate dice odd modifiers I've been scratching my head trying to come up with a way to differentiate border types visually without relying on the popup and without cluttering up the interface too much.

If you were in charge of making border arrows, how would you go about doing that?

I've thought about having tiny icons in the center of the arrows for non-Default borders, like an eyeball for view, the classic cannon-on-wheels for artillery, a bran muffin for fortify etc.

Dashed lines are also an option, though I think I like the little icons ideas. The fortify-only could be an icon of a wagon or something, I suppose, to indicate supplies or some such.

Dashed lines was the first thing I thought of too. You could have long dashes for view and little dots for fortify or whatever.

I don't so much like the icons in the middle of lines idea because it might be hard visually to distinguish when there are a lot of borders. Maybe some sort of altered icon at the destination end of the line. Like a circle or a square instead of an arrowhead.

i've wondered this too, and come up with both arrow and line options. dashed and dotted or double lined lines. arrow, block, circle, etc arrowheads.

but both of these (and the icon option) present problems. not all boards have the space needed for any of these options. take darn near any board out there and you have territories where all you can see is the arrowhead (they are too close together). the arrowheads themselves are too small to mess with too much since they would cover up some territories if altered to be bigger to fit an icon.

i think the arrowhead shape is the closest to being the best solution, but i still have reservations that they are too small to distinguish differences. however if tom could show a screenshot of different shapes, that might make me feel different.

There was an earlier suggestion for allowing two types of border displays, either border arrows or circles around the possible target borders - this would be a designer option.

Other than that, dotted lines are an option, as are adding sprites (e.g. an artillery cannon) but as mentioned it would quicky get very messy. Also for short borders dotted arrows might not be visible properly.

I think the only scalable way to do it is via different border colors + having a toggle button to turn off the display of the fortify / view only borders.

Sneak peek.

The logic is not *quite* correct yet but it's 90%, still need to colorize the modded borders and work out another minor bug, but it will be:

- Toggles for the 5 border types.
- Attack type (normal, attack, artillery) solid lines.
- Fortify dashed (---) lines.
- View dotted (...) lines.

Green/red colorized as per the player for modded territories.

Much coolness :)

I still think circles highlighting around the territories is more effective than arrows. When the arrows are too close, you can either not see them, or they turn around and face backwards. Arrows going under the territories is effective, but still a little cluttered, especially if the territories are closer together. I must admit, though, the dotted lines are a substantial improvement.

As for color, the territories could have a white glow for normal borders, a red glow for defense advantage modifiers and green for attack advantage modifiers.

I think the arrows are more effective and also more intuitive for regular 'Risk-like' boards which are based off maps - these tend to have nice separation between territories.

For other more advanced or arcade style games particularly where there is a higher density of territories the territory highlighting method would work better.

However how would we denote artillery / view only / transfer only borders with the territory highlighting system?

Yah, maps like crossword, maze, clue, or anything else with a regular repeating pattern of territories is horrendous when trying to use the arrow system.

With a territory highlight for those types of maps you would have more flexibility in using icons because you have more space, about an 18px circle that you can overlay on the territory. Smart use of transparency or icon design would allow the player color and unit count to still be visible.

Maybe something based off the WG logo shape. I'm a horrible artist but modifying the logo to express View/Artillery/Fortify while maintaining the central visual hole might work.

OK let's assume that in the near future there'll be a designer switch to allow either border display or territory highlighting.