Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How can the graph be made more readable? #29

Open
BurkusCat opened this issue Dec 23, 2018 · 8 comments
Open

How can the graph be made more readable? #29

BurkusCat opened this issue Dec 23, 2018 · 8 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@BurkusCat
Copy link
Owner

The counter-play in R6 Siege is very complex. What are some ways that the graph can be made easier to read whilst still preserving detail?

Existing tickets that will help improve readability:
#3 #28 #24 #2

@BurkusCat BurkusCat added the question Further information is requested label Dec 23, 2018
@J-888
Copy link

J-888 commented Dec 29, 2018

You could add a feature so when hovering an icon, the unrelated nodes fade out (partially or completely), even making arrows, text and icons bigger.

You could also keep "pinned" icons from fading out.

@unkindlykiller
Copy link

i was thinking put attackers on one side and defenders on the other side when site is loaded

@BurkusCat BurkusCat pinned this issue Dec 29, 2018
@J-888
Copy link

J-888 commented Dec 29, 2018

@derrick-j-tubbs
Copy link

Is there any reason why the operators need to be able to be individually moved? Currently moving around the operators makes the graph harder to read rather than easier. The operators could initially be loaded in a circle with (like @unkindlykiller said) attackers on the left and defenders on the right. Perhaps grouping operators who have the same general counters like mentioned in #28

(The above is assuming there isn't any crossover between operators on each team. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Beyond that there are two possible ways to improve performance overall by rendering fewer relationships. We could start the graph with only major/hard counters rendered and checkboxes to show other relationships. This could be the default state of the page. There could be another option to render no relationships until an operator is clicked on. So you could select an operator that you want to counter, and view all counters (hard by default, all with options) to that operator, eventually only see the counter 'web' for operators that are selected. For example if A counter B, D, and E, and B counters C and D, if A is selected you will see the counters from A -> B, A -> D, and A -> E, but you wouldn't see any of the relationships associated with B, B - > C or B -> D. This results in only the relevant relationships being shown improving the ability to use this information more quickly. It also would improve performance no matter how many operators or relationships were added to the pool.

There could be an included option that allows users to view all of the relationships in the dataset (similar the current format), with a warning that performance may suffer as a result of selecting that option. Now this isn't entirely ideal if we want to be able to render the entire map at once, however, I feel that it would be very difficult to read all the information if it was all rendered at once. These are just a few proposals, I haven't looked into how to implement any of these ideas yet. I would love to hear if these are ideas you agree with or if you have any other options or alternatives.

@BurkusCat
Copy link
Owner Author

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you @lynx-the-cat. I appreciate the input! :)

I think it is quite fun being able to move the operators around. You can also lock them in place (a few people have sent me pictures they have "drawn" by laying all the operators out which is quite neat). It is a feature I would want to keep. The site is meant to be informative but also should look cool/be interactive unlike a table/wiki page.

An attacker/defender view would be cool but I would suggest that it would be an optional feature. Ideally we want to keep all of the original functionality of the site with new ways of viewing the data being different options you can switch to/from.

Recruit is a cross-over between the two teams but I believe the Recruit on the graph is an Attacking recruit.

I think your idea of switching the default view to be "Hard counters" only is a fantastic idea. I think switching the checkboxes on the site to be radio buttons so you can only view one category of counters at a time would go well with that. Based on your last point, what about a 4th radio button on the page to view "All counters"? I don't think we need to warn people but I think it would be good still provide the option. I've added a ticket #136 for this.

Your idea of about only showing relationships for one operator at a time is similar to #67. Except #67 would be a readability only improvement, it wouldn't improve performance. Although it wouldn't improve performance, I think the implementation of #67 would be better to go with.

@R4ygen
Copy link

R4ygen commented Sep 10, 2020

Hello, just found this project. Very helpful but a bit cluttered yes. So, my ideas to improve it:

I use a similar site for Overwatch, that uses a table layout instead of this dynamic network one, and it's pretty easy to read while still remaining pretty complete of information. You can find it here.
We could add the option to view more info about an operator when double clicked in the table layout too.

Or, even simpler to implement and to keep just the actual layout, add the option to download the data in .xls format!
This would double as an offline export option by any user if needed too.

@BurkusCat
Copy link
Owner Author

Hi @R4ygen, that site is pretty sweet! I've added a comment to issue #79 . I do think a second page that displays the same data but in a table/grid view would be amazing. I do like the main page of r6counters.com, it is fun to play with. But I think a more functional view like that would be amazing!

@BurkusCat
Copy link
Owner Author

#218 added as its own item

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants