Add an option to display absolute overmap coordinates

[DeltaEpsilon7787]

Summary

SUMMARY: Interface "An option to display absolute overmap coordinates instead of relative coordinates"

Purpose of change

Overmap displays your current position like 3'59, 2'33 which is a strange unit that's pretty much useless: it's not very easy to remember, it's not clear how it works and, for the purposes of stuff like calculating distances manually, it's converted into absolute coordinates anyway. This PR alleviates this by adding an option (enabled by default) to display absolute coordinates instead.

Describe the solution

The only two places where overmap coordinates are seemingly displayed is the bottom right corner of [m]ap screen and notes panel in the same screen. Depending on the option's value, it will display them differently.

Describe alternatives you've considered

N/A

Testing

N/A

Additional context

[Coolthulhu]

Works as expected, but I have a problem with the naming:
The "relative" format naming is not actually relative. A more correct naming would be "overmap scale" vs "overmap tile scale", though this may be hard for users to tell apart without also allowing "submap" and "local tile" settings for comparison.
"Overmap" vs "absolute"?

The primary advantage of the overmap format is that it tells you which overmap are you on at a glance. While this is an implementation detail that the player shouldn't need to know, the reality is that the player can benefit from knowing where overmaps end.
Additionally, when doing save manipulation, knowing the overmap coords is pretty vital.

I have mixed feelings about making absolute the default, since newer players may miss some important coord data and the general strategy is for options to stay as they were, but the new format is simpler and easier to understand, so I guess it should be fine.

[DeltaEpsilon7787]

Works as expected, but I have a problem with the naming: The "relative" format naming is not actually relative. A more correct naming would be "overmap scale" vs "overmap tile scale", though this may be hard for users to tell apart without also allowing "submap" and "local tile" settings for comparison. "Overmap" vs "absolute"?

Honestly we can just eschew the naming entirely in favor of using coordinate examples as the option values.
"338, 416" / "1'158, 2'56"

The same thing can be applied to time, by the way: "3:35 AM", "15:35", "1535".

The primary advantage of the overmap format is that it tells you which overmap are you on at a glance. While this is an implementation detail that the player shouldn't need to know, the reality is that the player can benefit from knowing where overmaps end. Additionally, when doing save manipulation, knowing the overmap coords is pretty vital.

Those are indeed mostly useful for debugging and out-of-game stuff, not during gameplay, as you mentioned.

I have mixed feelings about making absolute the default, since newer players may miss some important coord data and the general strategy is for options to stay as they were, but the new format is simpler and easier to understand, so I guess it should be fine.

I'm just not sure what's important in the overmap number.

[Zireael07]

Honestly we can just eschew the naming entirely in favor of using coordinate examples as the option values.
"338, 416" / "1'158, 2'56"

Best solution in the case of this problem.

[Coolthulhu]

Honestly we can just eschew the naming entirely in favor of using coordinate examples as the option values.

But then it's hard to tell user something like "set your coords to overmap, then note the overmap (first number in coords) you're on".

[Coolthulhu]

I'm just not sure what's important in the overmap number.

It's useful to have it as an option when doing save manipulation, debugging, checking specials distribution.
Game finale is on a specific overmap.
Edges of overmaps can be visibly different from "internal" terrain.

[DeltaEpsilon7787]

I'm just not sure what's important in the overmap number.

It's useful to have it as an option when doing save manipulation, debugging, checking specials distribution. Game finale is on a specific overmap. Edges of overmaps can be visibly different from "internal" terrain.

Those are all debug manipulations, not really normal gameplay (hell, you can even remove the option entirely and display relative coords only in debug mode). For normal gameplay, absolute coordinates still reign supreme IMO.

But then it's hard to tell user something like "set your coords to overmap, then note the overmap (first number in coords) you're on".

Not sure what you mean

[Coolthulhu]

Those are all debug manipulations

No, game finale, specials and map edges are not debug things.
It's important that they are accessible in some way, even if it requires settings.

Not sure what you mean

When a player asks "how do I move my character to a new world" or "I want to regenerate a bugged location", it requires finding overmap coords and overmap tile coords.

[DeltaEpsilon7787]

Well, regardless, for the most part the player would benefit more from absolute coords. The option to switch back is still there and for those few cases it might be fine to break the flow a bit and have the player go into the options to switch the value.

When a player asks "how do I move my character to a new world" or "I want to regenerate a bugged location", it requires finding overmap coords and overmap tile coords.

For the former it's probably worth stating that you want to switch to this mode. I can't say much about the latter task.

[Coolthulhu]

I'm OK with absolute being the default, but the name "relative" is not really correct here - they aren't relative to any position other than absolute (0, 0). As in, the whole coord unambiguously and uniquely describes a specific point, just like "absolute" coords do.

Wikipedia, in article about angles, seems to imply "subdivided" would be a correct term. So "absolute" and "subdivided".

[DeltaEpsilon7787]

Alright, implemented it.