Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Post edit history

Sometimes it hard to tell 2 players apart from their colour

To display differences between versions, select one or more edits in the list using checkboxes and click "diff selected"
Post edit history
Date Editor Before After
2/23/2015 9:00:59 PMPLrankAdminSprung before revert after revert
2/23/2015 9:00:10 PMPLrankAdminSprung before revert after revert
2/23/2015 8:56:18 PMPLrankAdminSprung before revert after revert
2/23/2015 8:40:44 PMPLrankAdminSprung before revert after revert
2/23/2015 8:40:07 PMPLrankAdminSprung before revert after revert
2/23/2015 8:23:46 PMPLrankAdminSprung before revert after revert
2/23/2015 8:23:06 PMPLrankAdminSprung before revert after revert
2/23/2015 8:22:26 PMPLrankAdminSprung before revert after revert
Before After
1 I'd go with the first one on the grounds that: 1 I'd stick with the current one on the grounds that:
2 \n 2 \n
3 1) it allows a consistent "self" colour; 3 1) it allows a consistent "self" colour;
4 2) it allows consistent schemes for ally/enemy. 4 2) it allows consistent schemes for ally/enemy.
5 \n 5 \n
6 These two allow you to tell whether a unit is own, allied, or enemy at a glance, which is important. The second system doesn't allow the consistent self colour and requires context to know whether warm or cold is the allies; it might not seem very problematic to figure out the context each battle but I believe it is helpful not to have to. The simplest case here is 1v1 where currently colour meanings are strictly set (red - enemy, teal - self); using the second system would strip them of that. Besides: 6 These two allow you to tell whether a unit is own, allied, or enemy at a glance, which is important. The second system doesn't allow the consistent self colour and requires context to know whether warm or cold is the allies; it might not seem very problematic to figure out the context each battle but I believe it is helpful not to have to. The simplest case here is 1v1 where currently colour meanings are strictly set (red - enemy, teal - self); using the second system would strip them of that. Besides:
7 \n 7 \n
8 3) it is synced for the main purpose of that (enemy colours are consistent among teammates). Teammate colours are as synced as is possible while keeping the unique self colour; for full sync removal of the self colour would be necessary (and sufficient). 8 3) it is synced for the main purpose of that (enemy colours are consistent among teammates). Teammate colours are as synced as is possible while keeping the unique self colour; for full sync removal of the self colour would be necessary (and sufficient).
9 4) it is already used. 9 4) it is already used.
10 \n 10 \n
11 Colors being too similar is not a problem with color schemes. Changing the colour scheme does not automagically extend the visible spectrum. You cannot get rid of the problem's source: there are only so many colours you can use, so similarity will always be a problem with clusterfuck level player counts regardless of palette choice; all you can do is limit the symptoms (through sensible limit on player counts). 11 Colors being too similar is not a problem with color schemes. Changing the colour scheme does not automagically extend the visible spectrum. You cannot get rid of the problem's source: there are only so many colours you can use, so similarity will always be a problem with clusterfuck level player counts regardless of palette choice; all you can do is limit the symptoms (through sensible limit on player counts).