[crossfire] GTK V2 client default layout and map size

[Kevin R. Bulgrien]

>   Quick thoughts/past notes:
>
>   I expect that the preferences will be driven a lot by what actual
> hardware folks are running on.
>
>   If you only have a display that does 1024x768, then the Oroboros is the
> likely winner.  But if you have a higher res display, that probably isn't a
> first choice, as you have a lot more display area than it uses.

I'm not bothered by that, and it actually is in the spirit of making the
game more accessible anyway.  I'd consider setting it as the default
without even taking a vote.  Why should not the majority get their
choice anyway - even if it isn't your or my favorite?

>   Now it may be that the client should try and be smart and choose a best
> default layout based on various factors, like screen resolution.  Same
> could be said for things like map size.
>
>   A better approach may be to have a basic configuration program (or
> window) that is used first time client is run by user (no .crossfire file).
>  A fair number of commercial games use that approach - configure the
> display resolution/quality you want to use, configure sound, etc.
>
>   That, however, is a fair amount of work, and ideally, the configuration
> dialogs used within the client match those initial configuration ones
> (don't duplicate code, but also easier for an end user perspective - if you
> see one set of configuration dialog the first time you run it that doesn't
> match the one you see later, may be harder to know what config options you
> used before, etc)

If a user supplies a layout, it could get really hard to have all the
necessary information where it would all work just right.

It does make sense to pick Oroboros automatically on desktops at 1024x768
or lower.  1280x1024 and higher have always been supported on this client,
so auto-picking once in that range seems not to buy much advantage, and
none of them default to sizes that won't fit at all on that resolution.

On IRC, people seem to be saying that 800x600 is still alive and kicking
too.  I figured I'd hammer a bit on Oroboros to get one option at that
size, so having one of those to pull out of the hat if someone launches
it on a small desktop might be good.

As for a configuration program, what I can see is showing thumbnails
of clients and let people browse them, along with the text descriptions,
possibly calling out the default size of the layout separately.  Doing
something like that, you could advise against certain layouts based on
the desktop size, but could allow them to be selected anyway if they want
to try to deal with the resizing.  That said, I think it needs to stay
simple, but even so, presently there are better ways to spend a lot of
development time.  People still complain too much about what isn't
there, and a configuration program won't address what gets complained
about the most.

Then... there is the whole thing about making the map size coincide with
a selected layout...  Right now it is difficult to know what to set the
map size too.  A first effort to address that is probably due quite high
priority.  You can totally hose a layout by using 25x25, which is the
current default.  I think the default map size should be a low common
denominator unless new features are added to hint map size settings.

>   Note that one reason I put the map window in the upper left corner is
> that to some extent it made using different map sizes easier.  But I do
> have to say I don't find it ideal either (but I'm not sure what I find
> ideal).

There are two options in the screen shots.  Some that put the map on one
side, and others.

>   I'm also not wild about the way the stats are displayed in all the
> layouts (which really isn't changed) - that is to say being in a single
> row: Str 5 Dex 6 Con 10, etc
>
>   as that never seems really easy to find for me, and I can't think of any
> other game that displays them - doing them as a column, with column to the
> right (or maybe several) may be more readable and more effective use of
> space, eg:
>
> Str 6		Speed 		0.50
> Dex 10		Weapon Speed	0.80
> Con 18		Damage		15
> Int 14		WC		6

Hmm.  Three layouts already do something like this.  The first layout on
Leaf's listing is very different, and not unlike what you describe.

  http://krayvin.home.att.net/caelestis_790x600.png

Further, all the layout screenshots do not expose the stats, so unless
one opened them, it would be difficult to say they hadn't changed.

  Chthonic, Oroboros do use columns as well.

The GTK V1 variants do not for more obvious reasons, but for the others,
I'll be most happy to do something different as it would free up more
screen area.

Remember too, I copied the legacy GTK V2, and differentiation occurs
somewhat over time as I play with ideas.  Keep suggestions coming.

Oddly, when I mentioned stats and the homogenous mode before, the gtk-v2
format was argued for, possibly giving some exception to allowing numbers
to cuddle the label.  I imagine that had an effect of me not "fixing" all
of the new layouts.  Frankly, I think the non-spaced-out in-line stats
are far more readable that the original layout, and a number of the new
layouts do that.

I'll revive thinking on other options for stat displays.

>   and so on.  As an aside, since exp now has its own statbar, there really
> isn't much reason for there also to be a display in the stat area.

I've noted that, and think removing it might require a code change to avoid
error messages as missing widgets do generate them, though I have not
checked to be sure.  It's a good reminder though.  I have thought it odd
for some time.

Kevin