Which Scoreboard Do You Use?

[EmperorFool]

I am thinking of disabling the original scoreboard in Civ4 and requiring the use of the Advanced Layout (default mode).

For those that do not know, the Advanced Layout keeps each "item" in the scoreboard in a single column, vertically lining up icons and names and scores so they're easier to read. More importantly, it allows you to rearrange or remove the items as you see fit.

I want to know if you use the Advanced Layout, and if so do you customize it.

Edit: To en/disable the Advanced Layout, hit ALT + CTRL + O to open the BUG Options screen, click on the Scoreboard tab, and (un)check the Advanced Layout checkbox on the right. If checked, you can alter the appearance and order of the columns by changing the Display Order field. Hover over the field to see the letter/symbol codes for each column.

If you wanna get really crazy, you can include any column more than once.

 

[Dresden]

I like the advanced scoreboard. I currently use the default layout because I just started using BUG and haven't found a reason to change it yet. Although I did reverse the relative power calculation on my copy.

 

[Cammagno]

I am thinking of disabling the original scoreboard in Civ4 and requiring the use of the Advanced Layout (default mode).

ehm... why?
Personally I will never use the original scoreboard anymore, but I like the idea that people can choose as more as possible...... it seems that we are moving toward a decrease of one of the key word in BUG, "optional". We have already quickly increased (recently) the number of mods which can't be enabled/disabled in options screen, now we even want to remove this possibility from mods that already have it?
To be clear, I'm not a fanatic in this field, so if there is a good reason to do it, one that increases the customizability or something like this, it's ok, but if there is not, I think we shouldn't remove this possibility of choice.
Furthermore, the possibility to turn the BUG components off, is a good way to be able to play when we introduce some bug... for example the possibility to rever to the original scoreboard enabled me to play when the last bug in scoreboard was introduced. This also increases the possibilities of testing the source of complex bugs. To tell the truth, I'm in the opposite direction, and I would like an option in the general page of the option screen to enable or disable all the bug mods together.

 

[EmperorFool]

ehm... why?

Making each addition to the scoreboard optional takes more time. Sure, it's not that much more, but it adds up and is a small impediment to making more changes. As it is I'm finding pulled in many directions; I have several almost-complete features on my HD right now. I'm being selfish in wanting to make it easier to add features, but also want to give more new features to the users.

We have already quickly increased (recently) the number of mods which can't be enabled/disabled in options screen

PLE cannot be fully disabled; you are correct. This is one of the reasons I resisted merging it into BUG in the first place. Once someone did that work for us, I had a hard time not accepting it. Many users wanted the features it provided, and I was able to make it customizable enough, that it seemed silly not to use it.

What are the other cases where things cannot be disabled?

Furthermore, the possibility to turn the BUG components off, is a good way to be able to play when we introduce some bug.

While that can happen when you're updating from SVN, you can just as easily SVN Update back to a previous stable version until the bug is fixed. I seriously don't want to add features whose sole purpose is to make dealing with existing bugs more palatable. I'd much rather spend time being a little more careful when committing code.

I would like an option in the general page of the option screen to enable or disable all the bug mods together.

That's a great idea, and it wouldn't be very difficult to add a master switch like that.

 

[Cammagno]

Making each addition to the scoreboard optional takes more time. Sure, it's not that much more, but it adds up and is a small impediment to making more changes. As it is I'm finding pulled in many directions; I have several almost-complete features on my HD right now. I'm being selfish in wanting to make it easier to add features, but also want to give more new features to the users.

Yes, I understand this, but here we are speaking of removing something which already is in, so this argument hardly applies to this case...

PLE cannot be fully disabled; you are correct. This is one of the reasons I resisted merging it into BUG in the first place. Once someone did that work for us, I had a hard time not accepting it. Many users wanted the features it provided, and I was able to make it customizable enough, that it seemed silly not to use it.

Youknow that I'm a strong PLE fan, so I'm very happy that it's in. For sure when it's not possible to make a mod optional, if it is a good mod, it's better to include it anyway, no doubt. And furthermore you made a good work in making it as costomizable as possible, as as optional as possible, so no problem with that

What are the other cases where things cannot be disabled?

Well, the not-pyton mods, like "I love asphalt" (I think there are 4-5 of this components, now). I know that they can't be disabled by pyton and so by option screen, and that they can be disabled renaming some file (in the ITA help, I've clearly explained how to do it), so it's not a big problem at all (even if I still don't understand why that specific mod is in BUG instead of BAT, but hey, I'm minority about this so no problem). To be completly clear, I can understand, accept and be happy with the fact that if a mod is a good one, it's better to include than to exclude only because enabling it can be a bit tricky... but again, if the feature is already there, why to remove it?

While that can happen when you're updating from SVN, you can just as easily SVN Update back to a previous stable version until the bug is fixed.

Yes, but it's much more time-consuming and you'll probably loose other features, and maybe the bug is inside a release version (I hope not, but it can happen, if the bug appears only in some conditions), and maybe the bug appear merging the mod with other mods and can be very useful to be able to disable pieces of BUG one by one to test, and so on...

I seriously don't want to add features whose sole purpose is to make dealing with existing bugs more palatable. I'd much rather spend time being a little more careful when committing code.

I agree But I never sayd that it's the sole purpose, only that it's an additional aspect to be considered.
But one more time... adding feature is a thing, removing them when they are already there is another

Anyway, this is just my opinion, not a big problem if you prefer to do it anyway

 

[EmperorFool]

This feedback is extremely helpful and precisely why I posted this poll, so no apologies or sugar-coating needed.

When I talk about needing to do more work adding features, I am specifically talking about the scoreboard here. Each new column I add requires a) the feature itself, b) a switch in the column order (trivial), and c) a checkbox for the normal scoreboard.

So each new column does need a new switch. Again, it isn't much work, but it also complicates the options screen. As long as one person uses the original scoreboard, I'll leave it as an option.

 

[Caesium]

I'd prefer to have the choice, which scoreboard I'd use.

 

[Sam_Yeager]

ehm... why?
Personally I will never use the original scoreboard anymore, but I like the idea that people can choose as more as possible...... it seems that we are moving toward a decrease of one of the key word in BUG, "optional". We have already quickly increased (recently) the number of mods which can't be enabled/disabled in options screen, now we even want to remove this possibility from mods that already have it?

This really sums up my view on this proposal i.e. NO!

Making each addition to the scoreboard optional takes more time. Sure, it's not that much more, but it adds up and is a small impediment to making more changes. As it is I'm finding pulled in many directions; I have several almost-complete features on my HD right now. I'm being selfish in wanting to make it easier to add features, but also want to give more new features to the users.

I realise that it may not be possible but perhaps it's worth investigating another way of making scoreboard chnages optional.

To an extent the same comment might apply to additions to BUG generally. Cam's point about why PLE should perhaps have been folded into BAT rather than BUG really rings true for me.

EDIT: Looking at the poll more closely I've realised that the poll only asks if I use the advanced scoreboard rather than if the original scoreboard should be disabled. However I am still vehemently against EF's proposal to disable the original scoreboard.

 

[·Imhotep·]

@EF:

I'm using WSNBDHCAR?EPTU*LO . But I'd like to have the ability to define some space between the items so they don't look cluttered up. I'm running Civ on 1280x1024 and it would look better if the items were 2 or 3px apart from each other...

Imhotep

 

[EmperorFool]

I think the following proposal might solve both problems (cluttered options screen and ease of testing options):

Remove the checkboxes for individual options (currently espionage, attitude icons, worst enemy icons, score delta) and instead use the Display Order field to customize both scoreboards.

Right now, you cannot disable the original elements from the original scoreboard. You can only do so in the Advanced Layout. This change would make the same possibility available to both versions of the scoreboard (more options) but use the same method of configuration (Display Order field) for them both.

I'd like to have the ability to define some space between the items so they don't look cluttered up.

How about allowing you to enter numbers anywhere in the Display Order field (what you pasted) for space out the columns? It's fairly cheesy, but quick to code up, and it allows you to have any space between any two columns (as opposed to a single Spacing field applied to all columns).

For example, you might use

W2S2N5BDHC1A1R2?EP3TU3*LO

which puts 2 pixels between War/Peace and Score, 2 pixels between Score and Trade Network, 5 pixels between Trade Network and Open Borders, etc. I can even allow you to put spaces in the field for readability that would be ignored by my code.

W2 S2 N5 BD HC1 A1R2 ? EP3 TU3 *LO

Eventually I'll make a nice screen like the CDA with two lists. The left list showing the columns in the order you want them, the right list showing all the columns you can choose. You'd move them back and forth to select which are visible and up and down to choose the order. Each would have a "space" column to set the spacing after the column.

While that sounds really simple, that's a lot of work and low priority, but it's here in case someone decides they want to hack something together.

 

[Thomas SG]

Keep the normal scoreboard because it's the only one that works well for players who like to play with lots of civs. Couldn't get the scrollbar to work with the advanced scoreboard yet. And I've got no time to try at the moment.

 

[Cammagno]

I think the following proposal might solve both problems (cluttered options screen and ease of testing options):

Remove the checkboxes for individual options (currently espionage, attitude icons, worst enemy icons, score delta) and instead use the Display Order field to customize both scoreboards.

Right now, you cannot disable the original elements from the original scoreboard. You can only do so in the Advanced Layout. This change would make the same possibility available to both versions of the scoreboard (more options) but use the same method of configuration (Display Order field) for them both.

Good solution.
But I see some little problems in it, for example which will be the default list of letter codes? Maybe you can consider also the posasibility to have two of these fields, one for the basic layout (which I suppose only allows to remove columns) and a second for advanced layout... this could also make easier to explain in hover text whot the player can do.

How about allowing you to enter numbers anywhere in the Display Order field (what you pasted) for space out the columns? It's fairly cheesy, but quick to code up, and it allows you to have any space between any two columns (as opposed to a single Spacing field applied to all columns).

Perfect.
Only be sure to code the behaviour for a 2-digit-number: 12 will mean a column of 12 pixel or one of 1 pixel and one of 2 pixel, resulting in 3 total pixel?

 

[The Doc]

[...]

How about allowing you to enter numbers anywhere in the Display Order field (what you pasted) for space out the columns? It's fairly cheesy, but quick to code up, and it allows you to have any space between any two columns (as opposed to a single Spacing field applied to all columns).

For example, you might use

W2S2N5BDHC1A1R2?EP3TU3*LO

which puts 2 pixels between War/Peace and Score, 2 pixels between Score and Trade Network, 5 pixels between Trade Network and Open Borders, etc. I can even allow you to put spaces in the field for readability that would be ignored by my code.

W2 S2 N5 BD HC1 A1R2 ? EP3 TU3 *LO

Eventually I'll make a nice screen like the CDA with two lists. The left list showing the columns in the order you want them, the right list showing all the columns you can choose. You'd move them back and forth to select which are visible and up and down to choose the order. Each would have a "space" column to set the spacing after the column.

While that sounds really simple, that's a lot of work and low priority, but it's here in case someone decides they want to hack something together.

Wouldn't that be rather confusing? I would prefer to have a separate text field which defines the space between all elements alike. Like this:

Space: [ 2] (perhaps below the display order field)

That way the display order field wouldn't get messed up by the numbers and would remain clearer.
Maybe you can implement this as an interim solution until you have time for the CDA-like lists for the options.

 

[Cammagno]

Wouldn't that be rather confusing? I would prefer to have a separate text field which defines the space between all elements alike. Like this:

Space: [ 2] (perhaps below the display order field)

That way the display order field wouldn't get messed up by the numbers and would remain clearer.
Maybe you can implement this as an interim solution until you have time for the CDA-like lists for the options.

I prefer the EF solution, because I don't want the same space everywhere.

A compromise can be a field in which to choose the default space size (a dropdown list with values between 0 to 9) as sugested by The Doc, but also a character (I sugest some not confusing, like "_") to be added to the code sequence where the user wants to put additional spaces (of the same value chosen from the dropdown list)

 

[·Imhotep·]

@EF:

That would be fine. I actually tried this once before as I thought to have read somewhere it was already coded...

 

[EmperorFool]

Only be sure to code the behaviour for a 2-digit-number: 12 will mean a column of 12 pixel or one of 1 pixel and one of 2 pixel, resulting in 3 total pixel?

It would be 12. The code would handle any number up to 2.147 billion likely. If your monitor is that big, why are you playing Civ4?

Here's a compromise that will probably be impossible to explain to people, but here goes.

Add an additional Default Spacing (The Doc) dropdown (Cammagno). This is applied between every column except those with an override entered into the Display Order field.

Display Order: SC5A
Default Spacing: 2​

This will put 2 pixels between Score and Civ and 5 pixels between Civ and Attitude.

Also, spaces in the Display Order will be ignored so you can make it easier to read if you wish. "SCA" is the same as "S C A"

I like Cammagno's idea of using _ to place the Default Spacing explicitely, so I may use that as well. In other words, _ will put whatever you set as Default Spacing and a number will put that number of pixels. In the case above, "C__5A" would put 9 pixels between C and A; "C_5_5_A" would put 16 between, etc. So you can combine them however you see fit.

Someone's going to have to write up a help file for just these settings.

 

[EmperorFool]

I actually tried this once before as I thought to have read somewhere it was already coded...

Yes, I posted this general suggestion in response to a request by ricardojahns to add a couple pixels of spacing after civ name.

I need to be clear that this extra spacing will have no effect on the regular scoreboard. Nor will the ordering of the columns. The only new effect on the regular scoreboard is that you could remove columns.

 

[NikNaks]

Add an additional Default Spacing (The Doc) dropdown (Cammagno). This is applied between every column except those with an override entered into the Display Order field.

Display Order: SC5A
Default Spacing: 2

This will put 2 pixels between Score and Civ and 5 pixels between Civ and Attitude.

That makes perfect sense and sounds great!

I like Cammagno's idea of using _ to place the Default Spacing explicitely, so I may use that as well. In other words, _ will put whatever you set as Default Spacing and a number will put that number of pixels. In the case above, "C__5A" would put 9 pixels between C and A; "C_5_5_A" would put 16 between, etc. So you can combine them however you see fit.

This, to me anyway, sounds over-complicated and maybe even counter-intuitive.

 

[Cammagno]

It would be 12. The code would handle any number up to 2.147 billion likely. If your monitor is that big, why are you playing Civ4?

Here's a compromise that will probably be impossible to explain to people, but here goes.

Add an additional Default Spacing (The Doc) dropdown (Cammagno). This is applied between every column except those with an override entered into the Display Order field.

Display Order: SC5A
Default Spacing: 2​

This will put 2 pixels between Score and Civ and 5 pixels between Civ and Attitude.

Also, spaces in the Display Order will be ignored so you can make it easier to read if you wish. "SCA" is the same as "S C A"

I like Cammagno's idea of using _ to place the Default Spacing explicitely, so I may use that as well. In other words, _ will put whatever you set as Default Spacing and a number will put that number of pixels. In the case above, "C__5A" would put 9 pixels between C and A; "C_5_5_A" would put 16 between, etc. So you can combine them however you see fit.

Someone's going to have to write up a help file for just these settings.

I like it
Be sure to let default spacing allowed values include 0

 

[EmperorFool]

Be sure to let default spacing allowed values include 0

Oooh, I already made the minimum 50, too bad!