UI Glitches [Archive] - .com.unity Forums

raynor

February 22nd, 2003, 08:42 PM

I downloaded Patch #3 because I'd seen some notes on 1.74 and 1.74 about improvements to the use of ENTER and ESC.

There are the UI problems I'm still unhappy with.

When you start a game, you may add five, ten or even twenty custom empires. Then, you have to go in one by one by one and turn on computer control. It would be nice if you could turn them all on at once. But you can't.

So, you click on the first one, you click on 'Edit', you turn on the AI, you click Create. You go back to the list. You click on the second one, you click on 'Edit', you turn on the AI, you click 'Create', you go back to the list. You do this for as many as sixteen more. You start the game. Ooops! You forgot to adjust one of the other setting. So, that 20 minutes was just wasted.

This time, you adjust all your other settting first before adding the empires and turning on computer control. But you just created one empire. But was the Last one the Drushocka or the EEE. I just can't remember. It would be nice if the Last empire you edited was still selected after you create it.

You get into the game and find that you still forgot to turn one on. Sure, you can look at the empire listing and turn them on to computer AI before you press 'End Turn'. I guess that would be better than all the tedium above.

Finally, you get into the game. You go to rename a ship. You type in the name and press 'Enter'. The game just beeps at you. You have to click the mouse somewhere to rename the ship.

You start playing the game. You are building defensive WEP's on a planet using 'Repeat Build'. Then, you clear the queue and start building a Space Port. Nine turns later, you realize that you have three Space Ports.

So, you uninstall the game and wait for Gold Patch 4. Thankfully, MOO III is coming out on Tuesday and Gal Civ a month later.

[ February 22, 2003, 18:58: Message edited by: raynor ]

Ragnarok

February 22nd, 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by raynor:

So, you uninstall the game and wait for Gold Patch 4. Thankfully, MOO III is coming out on Tuesday and Gal Civ a month later.You really need to give SE4 some more time. Get used to the controls. Not every game will have perfect UI features. In fact I'm pretty sure MOOIII will have problems with it's UI for awhile as well.
Those problems you mentioned you don't even notice after awhile. I know I don't.
When MOO III comes out it will have it's share of problems and bugs that will take awhile to fix. (they can hold off releasing it for as long as the y like but it will still have its issues)

Suicide Junkie

February 22nd, 2003, 09:11 PM

That's seems to be overreacting just a bit.
Why not just let the computer select random AI players for you?

Why not just go to "players" under the file/game menu, and check the buttons to set the ones you missed to AI control?

Why is it so hard to unselect the repeat build button?
If you'd had a mineral miner facility in the queue rather than a spaceport, you'd be pretty happy, wouldn't you?
The game dosen't care if you make bad strategic choices. Maybe you really wanted to build backup spaceports!

[ February 22, 2003, 19:13: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Andr�s

February 22nd, 2003, 09:24 PM

I normally just allow the game to pick random races. But I guess you could create a set of .emp files with AI control on.

raynor

February 22nd, 2003, 09:28 PM

Why not just let the computer select random AI players for you?
In order to get a good game going, you need to select the AI opponents from the TDM, etc that you know will offer the best challenge.

If you'd had a mineral miner facility in the queue rather than a spaceport, you'd be pretty happy, wouldn't you?
I dunno. I'm not so sure I'd want to come back to the planet and find that I'd been wasting the resources building a nonexistent Mineral Miner for the past several turns. (Unless that's a bug they've fixed. It used to be that the game would continue building facilities even after there was no more space available.)

The game dosen't care if you make bad strategic choices. Ahhh... the time honored defense of the lazy programmer. It's not a bug. It's a feature!

capnq

February 22nd, 2003, 10:26 PM

the time honored defense of the lazy programmer. It's not a bug. It's a feature! The time-honored defense of the careless user. "Why can't the program read my mind and do what I want, rather than what I tell it to?"

Gryphin

February 22nd, 2003, 11:01 PM

raynor,
on one hand I can empathise with you. I have run into and done all of the things you mention and it is frustrating. I have also cursed at the program when it let me send out colony ships without people on board or build ships witout engines. It did not even warn me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif On the other I have never played a more sophisticated game with the deapth or support SEIV has.

Re: Getting good random AI for oponents
It must be possible to mod the stock AI. I wonder if anyone has done it.

Folks? have they?

[ February 22, 2003, 21:03: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

Fyron

February 22nd, 2003, 11:02 PM

In order to get a good game going, you need to select the AI opponents from the TDM, etc that you know will offer the best challenge.Then go move all of the AI races you do not want to have in games from the Pictures\Races folder (under TDM if using that mod). This will fix that "problem" very nicely.

I dunno. I'm not so sure I'd want to come back to the planet and find that I'd been wasting the resources building a nonexistent Mineral Miner for the past several turns. (Unless that's a bug they've fixed. It used to be that the game would continue building facilities even after there was no more space available.)Then you just need to pay attention when using Repeat Build orders. Clearing the Queue should not ever clear Repeat Build, as the 2 have nothing to do with each other.

Ahhh... the time honored defense of the lazy programmer. It's not a bug. It's a feature!Of course this is not a bug. Again, the two have 0 correlation, and should not ever be linked up to each other. Clearing one should not affect the other.

Gryphin:
Re: Getting good random AI for oponents
It must be possible to mod the stock AI. I wonder if anyone has done it.

Folks? have they?Yes, TDM has modded several of the stock AIs. Check the readme or credits to see which ones.

[ February 22, 2003, 21:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Graeme Dice

February 23rd, 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
Ahhh... the time honored defense of the lazy programmer. It's not a bug. It's a feature!There is no inherent reason to restrict spaceports to one per planet, and to do so would cause vast problems for those modders who might want to create a facility that has multiple abilities including spaceports. You left the queue on repeat build, and it functioned exactly as it was supposed to. It built another of the top items.

raynor

February 23rd, 2003, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by capnq:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> the time honored defense of the lazy programmer. It's not a bug. It's a feature! The time-honored defense of the careless user. "Why can't the program read my mind and do what I want, rather than what I tell it to?"<hr /></blockquote>It is possible to create, for example, a word processing program that doesn't prompt you to save when you exit the program. Then, when a person loses a ten page document, you can easily say that they were careless not to save their document before exiting.

But... if that is a fair comparision, then I place the burder of proof on you to point out just one word processing program that wouldn't prompt you to save your document before exiting.

If you can name just one, then you were right, "careless user" is appropriate. If not, then "careless programmer" is appropriate.

Fyron

February 23rd, 2003, 02:52 AM

That is an extremely flawed analogy Raynor. There is absolutely no basis of comparison between saving upon exiting from a word processor and clearing the repeat build orders from the build queue when hitting "Clear Queue". For an analogy to work, there has to be some basis of comparison. In this case, there is none.

The Clear Queue and Repeat Build system is not flawed in any way. Your analogy does not show it to be flawed.

Suicide Junkie

February 23rd, 2003, 02:52 AM

That is a laughable comparison!

Se4 does ask to be sure if you want to exit when you go to the trouble of opening the menu and clicking close.

This situation is much more like that same word processing program popping up a message box asking if you really wanted to repeat the same letter twice in a row.

raynor

February 23rd, 2003, 02:53 AM

Let me give you a better example of a UI problem: Ship Design.

An escort size vessel can only have one bridge.

IMHO, a well thought-out UI would either remove or gray out the bridge component after you have added one to the ship. SEIV does neither of these. Instead, it tells you that you have too many.

You might call that a UI choice. I would call it a UI bug.

Did someone say that it makes sense for 'Repeat Build' to repeat build the first item--even if the queue contains ten items? IMHO, if the queue contains more than one item, the program should warn you that the second item will never be built. Similarly, if the 'Repeat Build' option is selected, then the program should not allow you to add another item to the build queue.

Let's face it. The game just doesn't have a very polished user interface, and because Malfador is just one programmer, no one cares. They would rather have better support for modding and new features like drones than a good UI.

[ February 23, 2003, 00:54: Message edited by: raynor ]

Fyron

February 23rd, 2003, 02:55 AM

A bug is an unintended feature, or when something functions differently than originally planned. MM fully intended the bridge to not be greyed out when one is added (or it would be greyed out as you suggested). So, it can not possibly be a bug.

Did someone say that it makes sense for 'Repeat Build' to repeat build the first item--even if the queue contains ten items? Yes, it does make sense, because that is what the Repeat Build function was designed to do. Repeatedly building a lot of different items in the list would be a function like "Cycle Build Queue", not "Repeat Build". It would be nice if both functions were available, but "Repeat Build" should only repeat the top item.

[ February 23, 2003, 00:58: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

raynor

February 23rd, 2003, 03:08 AM

Is there a reason why you would want to have the ability to add two, three, four, ten, twenty, fifty or even one hundred bridges to an Escort class vessel?

No.

Will the game let you successfully create a ship with more than one bridge?

No.

If you add more than one bridge to a ship, how many clicks will it take to remove those additional bridges from the ship without completely canceling the design:

One per ship.

Calling it a bug is analogous to calling this accidental behavior. If you don't to call it a bug and you can't provide any good reason why you would want to add more than one bridge to the ship, then you are saying that Aaron wanted the novice user to engage in the click fest that must ensue when you must remove the extraneous bridges. Calling it a bug is analogous to saying that the game is just so complex that Aaron didn't give this issue any thought. If you don't want to call it a bug and you cannot prove a useful purpose for this functionality, then the next step is to assume malicious intent by the programmer.

Personally, I would rather say this is just so trivial that Aaron didn't have time to consider it. But if you want to say that he's just a mean person, well... I think you are a mean person. :-)

[ February 23, 2003, 01:09: Message edited by: raynor ]

raynor

February 23rd, 2003, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
That is a laughable comparison!

Se4 does ask to be sure if you want to exit when you go to the trouble of opening the menu and clicking close.

This situation is much more like that same word processing program popping up a message box asking if you really wanted to repeat the same letter twice in a row.Sure. It is laughable. That was the plan. I'm glad it worked. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It *was* a pretty "macro" scale comparision, and I thin your example is pretty apt. It would be pretty annoying if word asked if I wanted to delete the same letter twice in a row.

Using your same example, the UI of SEIV is akin to allowing the user to infinitely delete a letter that doesn't exist. This is the same as using 2200,2200,2200 resources to build a facility that can never be built.

I guess the appropriate Word equivalent to repeat building a facility that can never be finished because the planet is full might be similar to doing a Search and Replace operation that infinitely find and replaces a word that isn't even in the document.

Fyron

February 23rd, 2003, 03:15 AM

They see the error message after just one extra bridge.

Calling it a bug is most certainly not analogous to calling it accidental behavior. Again, there is no basis of comparision between the 2 things. Game bugs have nothing to do with the user's actions, but with the game's code. You simply can not make an analogy between them.

I can tell you that it would be a waste of time to program the greying out of the bridge component, because of the moddability of the game. What if there are 17 possible components wiht the bridge ability to use in a mod? It would get very fuzzy to program the game to grey all of them out.

Fyron

February 23rd, 2003, 03:16 AM

Using your same example, the UI of SEIV is akin to allowing the user to infinitely delete a letter that doesn't exist. This is the same as using 2200,2200,2200 resources to build a facility that can never be built.It doesn't use those resources though.

I guess the appropriate Word equivalent to repeat building a facility that can never be finished because the planet is full might be similar to doing a Search and Replace operation that infinitely find and replaces a word that isn't even in the document.That is a rather poor analogy there. The two functions do nothing that is at all related.

[ February 23, 2003, 01:22: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

raynor

February 23rd, 2003, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Using your same example, the UI of SEIV is akin to allowing the user to infinitely delete a letter that doesn't exist. This is the same as using 2200,2200,2200 resources to build a facility that can never be built.It doesn't use those resources though.
<hr /></blockquote>

Yes. It does.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I guess the appropriate Word equivalent to repeat building a facility that can never be finished because the planet is full might be similar to doing a Search and Replace operation that infinitely find and replaces a word that isn't even in the document.That is a rather poor analogy there. The two functions do nothing that is at all related.[/qb]<hr /></blockquote>Okay. Fine. You build stuff in SEIV. You format stuff in Word. That is about the closest you can get between a game and a word processor. Change that example to be infinitely formatting the same word to make it bold.

[ February 23, 2003, 01:35: Message edited by: raynor ]

raynor

February 23rd, 2003, 03:36 AM

It's been a very long time since I uploaded a file. Can someone help me upload a savegame so I can get others to take a look and see if it's using resources?

Thanks!

[ February 23, 2003, 01:41: Message edited by: raynor ]

Fyron

February 23rd, 2003, 03:40 AM

Since it infinitely uses resources to NOT build something, it is most definitely a bug. Thanks for the challenge. I tested it. It absolutely appears to use those resources. I'll email Aaron a savegame. Since it's a bug instead of just a UI choice, Aaron can either ignore it or act on it.That's news to me! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif And, it does indeed make it a bug (if it uses resources when trying to repeat build a facility and the planet is already filled with facilities). The best solution would be to clear the build queue (and not the Repeat Build) if it is set to repeat build a facility, and the planet is full.

Sorry for the inflammatory remarks.There were inflammatory remarks?

Thanks for your help!!Glad I could be of service. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Okay. Fine. You build stuff in SEIV. You format stuff in Word. That is about the closest you can get between a game and a word processor. Change that example to be infinitely formatting the same word to make it bold.That basically means that you CAN NOT make an analogous comparison between the two. Its like comparing a firm matress to an apple. You can't very well say "this matress is like a tasty apple", now can you? No. For an analogy to work (or even be possible), there has to be a great deal of similarity between the two objects being compared.

[ February 23, 2003, 01:44: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

raynor

February 23rd, 2003, 03:48 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Okay. Fine. You build stuff in SEIV. You format stuff in Word. That is about the closest you can get between a game and a word processor. Change that example to be infinitely formatting the same word to make it bold.That basically means that you CAN NOT make an analogous comparison between the two. Its like comparing a firm matress to an apple. You can't very well say "this matress is like a tasty apple", now can you? No. For an analogy to work (or even be possible), there has to be a great deal of similarity between the two objects being compared.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Is the following analogy adequate? In Space Empires IV, you can endlessly expend resources building a facility that isn't ever going to be built. If MS Word performed identically, it might endlessly format a word that isn't there?

If that example isn't satisfactory, then I guess you are saying that it is impossible to compare usability between two software program unless they are both games and they are both 4x space strategy games and they both allow building stuff and they both allow queue and...

Hey... at least both Word and SEIV are software programs. I dare you to find something so specific in your apple/mattress example. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 23, 2003, 01:51: Message edited by: raynor ]

Fyron

February 23rd, 2003, 04:03 AM

Apples and matresses are both used by people. They are both physical objects. They both have mass and take up space. They could both be the same color. That's about it.

There is not a whole lot to compare between Word and SEIV.

Suicide Junkie

February 23rd, 2003, 04:16 AM

Hey... at least both Word and SEIV are software programs. I dare you to find something so specific in your apple/mattress example. Common items in a household? Not that that really helps http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Things to consider with the analogy:
- Repeat build does NOT cause an infinite loop to crash your computer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
- Repeat build USUALLY is very helpful.
- You can turn it on and off anytime you feel like it, and it is never toggled without your knowledge.
- There is absolutely no problem until you forget about the system long enough for it to start repeating.

How does this sound?

There is an autosave feature (repeat build) on a generic graphics editing program. It saves (builds) to a new file (facility) each time, so as not to lose any work.
However, you are currently working on a special project (facility). It happens to be a huge map of Canada at military spy satellite resolution (spaceport - something you only want one of).
You accidentally forget to turn off the autosave(repeat build).

You work along happily, and then it autosaves a second copy, your harddrive runs out of space, and you waste time cleaning up the mess it makes(you get too many spaceports and wasted game time on them).

...

I think it would also be appropriate to note that to my knowledge nobody else here has a problem with repeat build.
That means either:
a) When they ran into the same problem as you, they said "oops. Note to self; don't do that next time" and stopped having a problem
b) They hit the problem, failed to complain at all, and tossed the game (or demo).
c) My memory is bad, or they complained when I wasn't here.

Wait! I see Nodachi mentioning just such a thing in this thread:
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=005677;p=2

It's been a very long time since I uploaded a file. Can someone help me upload a savegame so I can get others to take a look and see if it's using resources?File uploads can be made here:
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=50;t=000002

Fyron: That's news to me! And, it does indeed make it a bug (if it uses resources when trying to repeat build a facility and the planet is already filled with facilities). The best solution would be to clear the build queue (and not the Repeat Build) if it is set to repeat build a facility, and the planet is full. I have used repeat build to finish filling a planet with facilities and then start repeat building troops.
That was at least a patch ago, and I wasn't repeat building spaceyards or anything like that.
In any case, it should just clear the offending item, not the entire queue.

[ February 23, 2003, 02:58: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Suicide Junkie

February 23rd, 2003, 05:07 AM

Well, we probably can't convince you its not a bug, if that's what you truly believe.

The question we should be asking is:
Is this worth not playing the game at all over?

Even in real life games, your interface will have a few problems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Can you get around them, and in the end is it still fun for you when you give it your best?

raynor

February 23rd, 2003, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
Well, we probably can't convince you its not a bug, if that's what you truly believe.
I have a save game that demonstrates that the game will endlessly waste resources building a facility that can never be built.

In other words, the queue is set to 'Repeat Build Top Item', for example, a Refining Station. The planet already has 4 out of 4 facilities. All other build queues are "held". The Empire Options screen shows that Construction Queue usage is: 1500.

The game Version is 1.84 Gold.

Are you saying that this isn't a bug??

[ February 23, 2003, 05:43: Message edited by: raynor ]

Suicide Junkie

February 23rd, 2003, 07:38 AM

No, I was referring to the original complaints you started with.

Wasted resources with an unbuildable facility should definitely be in the list for the next patch, but in the meantime, it is not to hard to just not repeat build such facilities.

Wanderer

February 23rd, 2003, 07:53 AM

I've just tested this (v1.84) as I was a little sceptical http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[edit] resource wastage occurs if you put more than one facility in a build queue then hit 'repeat'. Seems someone's already found this out so I've shortened my post.

1) The planet using resources up to no good effect sounds like a bug to me. Perhaps all facilities (not just the top item) should be removed from the build queue when the planet becomes full (ditto for cargo if the cargo limit is reached)?

2) This can only be achieved by player mis-use - if you're going to repeat build a facility until the planet is full, why place a second facility in the build queue? SJ's 'repeat build a facility then mass produce troops' sounds like a good way to get the best out of the repeat build function. I agree it'd be nice to repeat the entire queue, not just the top item, but at least the option does exactly what it says on the tin. It's not a UI glitch.

[ February 23, 2003, 05:57: Message edited by: Wanderer ]

raynor

February 23rd, 2003, 08:22 AM

2) This can only be achieved by player mis-use - if you're going to repeat build a facility until the planet is full, why place a second facility in the build queue? Herein lies the problem. The game doesn't turn off 'Repeat Build' when you clear the queue. In my opinion, that is the intuitive behavior.

This game has lots of folks who love it so much they would rather pawn off all its idiosyncracies as player misuse. I would imagine most of the players of this game are still on the nVidia and AMD band wagon as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Graeme Dice

February 23rd, 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
An escort size vessel can only have one bridge.
With standard data files.

IMHO, a well thought-out UI would either remove or gray out the bridge component after you have added one to the ship. SEIV does neither of these. Instead, it tells you that you have too many.
The logic and data file search required to perform this on an arbitrary data file is far more complicated than the problem warrants.

Did someone say that it makes sense for 'Repeat Build' to repeat build the first item--even if the queue contains ten items? IMHO, if the queue contains more than one item, the program should warn you that the second item will never be built.The program does. It's in the text that describes that only the first build item will be repeated.

Similarly, if the 'Repeat Build' option is selected, then the program should not allow you to add another item to the build queue.
As others have pointed out, there are valid reasons for allowing the other queue items to remain. I know I'm glad for it when dealing with the 100+ shipyards I have in orbit of my homeplanet in a proportions game. Without that, I would have to do far more mouse clicks to change a queue back to its standard repetitive build after building a few other units.

raynor

February 23rd, 2003, 10:36 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by raynor:
An escort size vessel can only have one bridge.
With standard data files.
<hr /></blockquote>To the best of my knowledge, this is not moddable. If you look at VehicleSize.txt, then you see only this one line that refers to the bridge:

Requirement Must Have Bridge := True

Here are the relevant lines from components.txt:

Ability 1 Type := Ship Bridge
Ability 1 Descr := Contains a ship bridge.
Ability 1 Val 1 := 0
Ability 1 Val 2 := 0

One way to test the 'Bridge' functionality is to add this ability to another component. I added this ability to the Rock Colony component and then added two Rock Colony components to a ship. The game displayed the informational line: The ship must have one bridge.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
IMHO, a well thought-out UI would either remove or gray out the bridge component after you have added one to the ship. SEIV does neither of these. Instead, it tells you that you have too many.
The logic and data file search required to perform this on an arbitrary data file is far more complicated than the problem warrants.
<hr /></blockquote>The game already has the logic implemented. That's how it is able to display the message that a ship can have one bridge and prevents you from creating a ship design with more than one bridge. That's the whole point of this complaint. There is no logic or data file search changes required. It would just be a simple change to the user interface.

A ship can have exactly one bridge. If you try to build a ship with more than one bridge, the game prevents it. So, once you add the bridge to the ship, don't let the user add it again. If you *do* let the user add the bridge again, then you are just wasting their time.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Did someone say that it makes sense for 'Repeat Build' to repeat build the first item--even if the queue contains ten items? IMHO, if the queue contains more than one item, the program should warn you that the second item will never be built.The program does. It's in the text that describes that only the first build item will be repeated.
<hr /></blockquote>Okay. Let me clarify to say that I want a feature that warns me before I leave the queue that some of the items will never be built. Once again, this is just basic UI design. You don't want to hide a message that could potentially cause the user a great deal of frustration. Just telling the user that the top-most item will be repeated would be adequate if the Last thing you clicked was that button. But because the program allows you to fill the queue *after* the button is pressed, there is a valid need for additional informational Messages.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Similarly, if the 'Repeat Build' option is selected, then the program should not allow you to add another item to the build queue.
As others have pointed out, there are valid reasons for allowing the other queue items to remain. I know I'm glad for it when dealing with the 100+ shipyards I have in orbit of my homeplanet in a proportions game. Without that, I would have to do far more mouse clicks to change a queue back to its standard repetitive build after building a few other units.<hr /></blockquote>It is a new program feature that stops repeat building facilities when the planet is full. So, yes, in that one case, it makes sense to have more than one items in the queue with repeat build turned on.

In all other cases, I would still disagree. Why would you want the game to make it easier for you to add an item to the queue that will never be built?

[ February 23, 2003, 08:52: Message edited by: raynor ]

geoschmo

February 23rd, 2003, 06:02 PM

Correct, the restriction for one bridge per ship is hardcoded. You can put an aux control on the ship, but there is no way to require a player to do so. You could I suppose mod the vehicle size and raise the maintenance on it up and then give the aux control an equal maintenance reduction. This way it would not make sense for the player to NOT have an aux control, but there would be nothing stopping him from doing so. And if he didn't read the fine print he'd have very expensive ships.

The AI can be required to build their ships with aux control through the design files, but that doesn't apply to the players.

Phoenix-D

February 23rd, 2003, 08:28 PM

"Okay. Let me clarify to say that I want a feature that warns me before I leave the queue that some of the items will never be built. Once again, this is just basic UI design. You don't want to hide a message that could potentially cause the user a great deal of frustration. Just telling the user that the top-most item will be repeated would be adequate if the Last thing you clicked was that button. But because the program allows you to fill the queue *after* the button is pressed, there is a valid need for additional informational Messages"

This addition would very quickly get incredibly annoying, and IMO is only good until you figure out this portion of the interface- which isn't at all hard. After that, you just say "I KNOW that, stop showing me this damn box!"

Phoenix-D

Fyron

February 24th, 2003, 01:09 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
[QUOTE]This game has lots of folks who love it so much they would rather pawn off all its idiosyncracies as player misuse. I would imagine most of the players of this game are still on the nVidia and AMD band wagon as well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Umm... no. That statement is just plain wrong. I don't think it could be any farther from the truth than it already is.

Also, nVidia makes the best video cards. They have the best drivers for video cards. ATI is the only company that could even come close. They usually have slightly better hardware than nVidia does, but they also have inferior and glitchy drivers that prevent their cards from being the best they could be. So, a nVidia card is generally always better than its ATI equivalent for many, many months (if not years), until ATI gets the drivers for it fixed. By that time, something much better has come out on the market, so it doesn't really help much. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

AMD's are not good CPUs at all. They tend to burst into flames when they overheat, where as Intel CPUs do not. If the CPU fan goes out, most AMDs will begin smoking, and can take out the motherboard with them. Intels generally do not do this. Also, Intel CPUs are always more powerful than their AMD equivalents.

The game already has the logic implemented. That's how it is able to display the message that a ship can have one bridge and prevents you from creating a ship design with more than one bridge. That's the whole point of this complaint. There is no logic or data file search changes required. It would just be a simple change to the user interface.

A ship can have exactly one bridge. If you try to build a ship with more than one bridge, the game prevents it. So, once you add the bridge to the ship, don't let the user add it again. If you *do* let the user add the bridge again, then you are just wasting their time.Actually, no. Those things require vastly different code functions to perform. Filtering out all possible bridge components would require a lot of search function coding that does not exist. The program would need to be altered to find all components with the bridge ability, and then a "greyed out" function would have to be completely written from scratch. This requires a lot of time, and there are far better things that MM's time could be spent on by this. Ideally, the game would be able to do this sort of thing. But as a matter of practicality, the degree of the problem is very insignificant as compared to the amount of time and effort required to write brand new code to "fix" it, and then to test it thoroughly. It has nothing to do with laziness and everything to do with living in the real world, where time is not infinite.

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
"Okay. Let me clarify to say that I want a feature that warns me before I leave the queue that some of the items will never be built. Once again, this is just basic UI design. You don't want to hide a message that could potentially cause the user a great deal of frustration. Just telling the user that the top-most item will be repeated would be adequate if the Last thing you clicked was that button. But because the program allows you to fill the queue *after* the button is pressed, there is a valid need for additional informational Messages"

This addition would very quickly get incredibly annoying, and IMO is only good until you figure out this portion of the interface- which isn't at all hard. After that, you just say "I KNOW that, stop showing me this damn box!"I was going to make an argument against this, but Phoenix' works rather well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It is a new program feature that stops repeat building facilities when the planet is full. So, yes, in that one case, it makes sense to have more than one items in the queue with repeat build turned on.Yes, a new program feature that requires a lot of time and testing to make function, and is not worth the end result. Maybe you should try to become a programmer, and then you can learn all about the problems doing such a thing imposes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In all other cases, I would still disagree. Why would you want the game to make it easier for you to add an item to the queue that will never be built?Because I want it to be very easy to add an item to the queue. Should the game give you an error message warning if you add a ship to a build queue that you can't afford to pay to build this turn? Absolutely not. A game is not supposed to compensate for bad decisions made by the player. Otherwise, you could not lose. What is the point of a game where you always win?

[ February 23, 2003, 23:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

raynor

February 24th, 2003, 05:11 AM

Graeme Dice

February 24th, 2003, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by raynor:
Myself, I would prefer that the game indicated to me that I can't successfully create a ship that has two components that have the bridge functionality.It does. It tells you that the ship has too many.

Your comment about the game not allowing you to add something to the queue that you don't have the resources to build is ludicrous.No, it really isn't. The queue also allows you to add items with a completion time of "never". Should this be removed?

Instar

February 24th, 2003, 08:34 AM

Problem with ATi cards is that their drivers have sucked -- a lot -- but its getting better. I rather prefer Intel and nVidia myself.

raynor

February 24th, 2003, 08:54 AM

I've heard that from lots of sources but since all my cards at home are nVidia-based, I've never seen it. If you see a link to some of the problems, would you mind posting it?

Until I found this awesome utility, Advanced Gamma Corrector:

http://www.iomagic.org/fsc/

I did find one really neat feature in the ATI drivers on my laptop at work. It has the ability to set the gamma for gameplay. For a bit, I was starting to consider a new ATI card just for that one feature.

Now, with AGC, I can just set my gamma settings using hot keys like CTRL-ALT-2 (for Gamma 2.0) and CTRL-ALT-0 (for no Gamma correction or 1.0.)

I was really hoping that when the GeForce FX came out, it would further drive down the prices of the GeForce 4200 throught 4600.

BTW, I highly, highly recommend that gamma utility.

[ February 24, 2003, 06:56: Message edited by: raynor ]

Fyron

February 24th, 2003, 01:33 PM

nVidia makes the best mid-range video cards and out sells ATI by a very good margin. Currently, ATI makes the best high-end card. nVidia's card came out six months late, isn't really faster than ATI's high end card, sounds like a vacuum from a room away. Oh, and nVidia has already said they aren't even going to mass produce it."Umm... reread my post about the video cards.

Your statements about AMD chips are just ridiculous. Where the heck did you get that hilarous stuff from anyways?Ever hear of a web site called Tom's Hardware? They tested this by removing the fans from the CPUs while running a FPS game. The intel systems slowed down, and the CPU survived. All of the various AMD CPUs went up in smoke. A few of the AMD models took out the motherboard with them.

AMDs give you more clock cycles for the dollar, sure. But, they are not a good alternative to Pentiums.

I guess you forgot to read my post below where I tested the bridge functionality.No I did not. There was nothing relevant to respond to that was not covered in the rest of my post.

Myself, I would prefer that the game indicated to me that I can't successfully create a ship that has two components that have the bridge functionality.And it does do that. The error message window is there for a reason, after all.

If you want to argue on an reasonably intellectual level, it is your job to refute my aforementioned argument. By dropping it, you show either that you forgot to read it or you just didn't understand it.There was no argument to speak of in that particular section of your post. I can not refute a non-existant argument. There were a few statements of some actions you took, but no argument to be understood or ignored.

I find it extremely offensive that you are willing to say that you are the final judge of what is a good use of Malfador's time. I am simply making suggestions that might transform this from a "niche" game to one that might have hopes of selling as many copies as one of the MOO series.Where did I say that? I never said nor implied that I was the ultimate authority on what is a good use of MM's time. As a thinking being, I can make logical conclusions about what is valuable and what is not. My conclusion was that programming the greying out feature is not worth the time and effort it would take to code it. I do, however, know for a fact that MM is rather busy at this time, and does not have much time to be spending on SE4 right now. I (and many others) would prefer that MM spent all SE4-related time on actual problems.

The key problem with Phoenix argument can be found by comparing it to the number of on/off settings already provided by the game.It would be annoying to have to turn that off. It is annoying to have to turn on a lot of options already.

Some folks find it annoying that the game warns them before they delete the top item from the queue.This has nothing to do with adding an item after giving Repeat Build orders. Queues with Repeat Build are very clearly marked as such. There are many situations in which you want to use Repeat Build for so many turns to build the top item, and then end Repeat Build to build the rest of the items. The message you propose would not be of very much benefit, and adds nothing that the game does not have already. As I said before, the game should not compensate for poor descisions on the part of the user. Repeat building when you don't really want to do so is not the game's fault, it is the user's fault.

As to your comment about me being a programmer: Why don't you take a look again at the user contributed utilities on your SEIV CD? You might just see my name staring back at you.So what? I don't care what you contributed to the Gold CD. That has nothing to do with this discussion. If you claim to be a programmer, that is fine. But, you have displayed a lack of knowledge about programming in your Posts, which is what prompted me to make that statement.

Your comment about the game not allowing you to add something to the queue that you don't have the resources to build is ludicrous.I strongly suggest that you take some time away from this forum and cool down. I would hate to see you get in trouble with the admins for further comments of this nature.

My comment was not at all ludicrous. It was perfectly reasonable in context with the course of the discussion. Your question was "Why would you want the game to make it easier for you to add an item to the queue that will never be built?", and I answered that. Adding a ship to the queue that you can not afford (and you aren't building any new facilities) could very easily result in adding an item that will never be built.

I did find one really neat feature in the ATI drivers on my laptop at work. It has the ability to set the gamma for gameplay. For a bit, I was starting to consider a new ATI card just for that one feature.nVidia video card drivers do that too. It is a standard feature of video cards, and has been for a long time (and the very latest when 8 MB cards were the best around).

raynor

February 24th, 2003, 05:23 PM

Can you please post the url of an article on Tom's that mentions that? I read that site pretty religiously and have never seen anything like that. But it's a monster site, and I might have missed it.

My main machine at home right now is an AMD 1.33 (before they started using the XP designation.) It worked absolutely fantastic, and I wholeheartedly recommend buying AMD CPU's.

On Pricewatch.com, the AMD XP 2600 is $230. On Tom's the closest Intel chip above the XP 2600 is the Intel Pentium 4 2.6. Pricewatch has that one for $236. In this case, I think the Intel is definitely the better value.

At a lower price point, you can get the AMD XP 2100 for $79. On Tom's, the closest Intel chip (IMHO) is the P IV 2.2. This one sells for: $175
In this case, it looks like the AMD offers comparable performance but is almost half as expensive.

In this case, I'm looking at the Quake III Arena benchmarks:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-22.html

Here is an article describing Compaq laptops containing the AMD processor:

http://www.computingreview.com/AMD+Notebook/Compaq/MPL_265_1744crx.aspx

Sadly, I did find this article when I looked to see if Dell is using AMD.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/cgi-bin/uk/printer_friendly.cgi?id=2076782

On the other hand, this article suggests that Dell may be embracing AMD's 64-bit offering:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/28366.html

Go figure...

Mephisto

February 24th, 2003, 06:33 PM

*Moderator mode /on*
As in the other thread, please, all sides, keep it friendly. And please keep it to this thread. Thank you!
*Moderator mode /off*

I personally own AMD chips for 2 generations now and they are good CPUs for their price. They are, however, quite hot. This can be a problem in summer time or warm rooms. And yes, my Last AMD did smoke away just like TH-Page described when my fan died. However, all the new motherBoards do have a safeguard for this and will shut down the chip before any harm can be done. If the motherboard fails to have this safeguard it will not be certified by AMD. This was the direct result of the TH tests. So, in the end, both of you are right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Fyron

February 24th, 2003, 09:46 PM

However, all the new motherBoards do have a safeguard for this and will shut down the chip before any harm can be done.Actually, in the TH test, some of the motherBoards with detection features were overwhelmed by the rate of increases in temperature, and so did not prevent their own demise.

Raynor, I have no idea where the video is on TH.

Wanderer

February 24th, 2003, 10:07 PM

Perhaps you could rename this thread [OT] AMD v Intel...

...and then stand well back. Remember kids, never return to a lit troll-thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

I have an AMD (Last time I had an Intel, next time I upgrade I'll probably go for Intel again) and the fan has recently started making weird noises. Should I be worried http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif ?

Then again, I have been running with the case open for some unknown reason, possibly our house's erratic heating system that likes to toast my room and freeze all the others.

Fyron

February 24th, 2003, 10:45 PM

I have an AMD (Last time I had an Intel, next time I upgrade I'll probably go for Intel again) and the fan has recently started making weird noises. Should I be worried ?Yes. You should be worried with an Intel CPU too, but just to a higher degree with AMD. I suggest getting a case fan, in addition to having your CPU fan tested to see if it needs replacing.

Instar

February 24th, 2003, 10:54 PM

That Tomshardware video is funny... both AMDs reached nearly 300 degrees Celsius, or more!

raynor

February 24th, 2003, 11:23 PM

Here's the link to the video:

http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20010917/heatvideo-05.html

DirectorTsaarx

February 25th, 2003, 12:17 AM

(Edited slightly from my post in the related thread...)

To get back on topic - was there a log message about the extra facilities not being built? I know you get one when building more units than can be stored at a location. I've also noticed that, in that case, the build order is also NOT deleted. I sometimes appreciate that, because sometimes I want all the units built anyway, and either launch enough cargo to store the units I want or move a transport to that location. Of course, sometimes I just forget to check how many weapon platforms I can fit on a small planet; but even then, I may not want the build order deleted because I might be building a newer Version of an old WP, and just forgot to jettison the old one.

Another reason to add multiple lines to a queue with "repeat build" on is for long-term strategy. I know I want to build, say, 10 turns worth of fighters, then switch over to repeat-building satellites. With the current implementation, I can select "repeat build", put one order for "one turn's worth" of fighters and one order for "one turn's worth" of satellites, and then keep track of when to delete the fighter order from the queue (possibly by watching the orbiting carrier to figure out when it's cargo bay is filled). That way, I save on having to enter the same order 10 times, followed by that satellite order.

Along those same lines, it might be useful to exploit this little feature; for a pure research compound colony, put "Research Center" as the first item in queue and "Central Computer Complex" as the second item. Turn on repeat build; once the planet is full, "Research Center" will be deleted and the CCC will be started. Since that takes multiple turns to build, you should be able to monitor the situation until it's one turn away from completion, then delete a Research Center just in time to make room for the CCC. Voila, you've now had the benefit of an extra Research Center for 5 turns or so, while waiting for the CCC to finish. Takes a little micromanagement, but in a seriously competitive game, every edge helps...

raynor

February 25th, 2003, 01:24 AM

I'm pretty sure there weren't any log Messages. For the game to be consistent with how it handles units, I think there should be a log entry.

You've raised a pretty interesting point to me.

This isn't directed at you, DirectorTsaarx, but instead at some of the other comments. They accused me of wanting the game to think for me because I thought the default behavior of 'Clear Queue' also turns off 'Repeat Build'.

I wonder if I would be stretching too far to accuse the game of thinking for everyone who repeats build facilities and lets the game delete that build order when the planet is full?

I mean, what if I wanted to repeat build facilities even if the planet were full. I might resent that the game is second guessing me.

For example, what if I had four planets with just one facility slot open. If I were running low on Rads, then might select all four planets and instruct each planet to repeat build the Refining facility. After one turn, all four planets would be full, and the game would delete the build order. But what if I planned to delete one facility per turn? (E.G. Delete one facility a turn to make room for the Repeat Build facility without that order being deleted in the same way that I would want the game to leave the Repeat Build unit order on so that I could decide (or not) to clear the cargo space to make room for another fighter.

Just food for thought. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

(Yes, I might acknowledge that the facility situation is much more rare than the unit situation. But I hope you'll grant that the interpretation is, at least, remotely reasonable.)

DirectorTsaarx: I'm not sure I understood the benefit of adding the fighter and then satellite order. Are these three approaches equivalent?

A. Your approach
1. Insert fighter build order
2. Turn on Repeat Build
3. Insert satellite build order
4. At a later time, delete the fighter build order

B. Second approach
1. Insert fighter build order
2. Turn on repeat build
3. At a later time, delete the fighter build order
4. Insert satellite build order

C. Third approach (doesn't require you to come back at a later time and builds 100 fighters in Groups of ten without user interaction)
1. Insert fighter build order
...
10. Insert 10th fighter build orderr
11. Insert satellite build order

Does that sound reasonable? It seems like the first two require you to monitor the situation every turn and then come back later. With the first approach you have already inserted the satellite order and only need to delete the fighter order when you come back. With the second approach, you have to do both the deletion and the insert when you come back. They both seem very similar to me. The third approach allows you to focus your attention elsewhere and know deterministically what will be built without user interaction. I'm not saying one way is better than the other. I'm just asking if the three are equivalent different ways to accomplish the same thing.

Your thoughts on the Research Center / Central Computer Compled are pretty cool. It's definitely something to try.

geoschmo

February 25th, 2003, 01:30 AM

I'd love it if the clear queue would clear the repeat order too. I'd also like to be able to multi-click and clear multiple queues at once. And I really wish you could mulit-click and do "one turns worth" of units art seval locations. And I'd like to be able to multi-click and add facilities.

(Sorry if any of these have already been covered. I am coming in late to the discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 01:52 AM

raynor:
Those are all nice points, and some of them would be useful optional features, but they detract from your original complaint that Clear Queue should also remove Repeat Build orders. This should not be implemented, for reasons I have already stated.

Finally, you get into the game. You go to rename a ship. You type in the name and press 'Enter'. The game just beeps at you. You have to click the mouse somewhere to rename the ship.This was in your original post, and I don't know if it was addressed or not. But, in one of the Gold patches (or maybe Gold itself), this was changed so that typing the enter key selects Ok, and esc selects Cancel.

raynor

February 25th, 2003, 02:34 AM

Imperator Fyron,

First, you are mistaken about the 'Enter' / 'ESC' key being implemented in Rename ship. I guess Aaron missed one. So far, that's the only one I've found.

Second, Clear Queue turning or not turning off Repeat Build is a simple matter of choice. Aaron chose to leave it on. I would have turned it off.

Third, the game's UI is inconsistent. The Repeat Building of facilities is inconsistent with the Repeat Building of Units. That again was a choice made by Aaron. He chose to remove the queue entry when the planet is full but to not remove the queue entry when the cargo space in the sector of the planet is full. I personally like that it doesn't remove the queue entry when sector cargo storage is full.

Fourth, one of the *scathing remarks* made by multiple folks was that because I think that Clear Queue functions a certain way, I also think the game should correct my "bad" strategic decions. As proved here, the game is clearly already correcting player's "bad" strategic decisions.

Fifth, I really like the page you created off the Malfador site. Yeah, I know it's isn't related to the top four but so what?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Sixth, I left out something or other but then again, who really cares. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Seventh, in case you're curious, I'll probably be too busy with my current SEIV game to go buy MOO3 for at least a decade. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 25, 2003, 01:04: Message edited by: raynor ]

Captain Kwok

February 25th, 2003, 03:36 AM

You can rename ships and hit [enter] instead of OK in Gold (for sure in 1.78 + 1.84) as I do it all the time for PBW - but not in the original 1.49 Version - I know 'cause it drives me nuts everytime I play my old 1.49 PBW games and hit [enter] and it BEEPS!

raynor

February 25th, 2003, 04:18 AM

Oops. Yep. You're right. I was on the Ship Design screen when I named a design and press 'Enter'. But pressing 'Enter' here doesn't really mean much.

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 06:19 AM

Fourth, one of the *scathing remarks* made by multiple folks was that because I think that Clear Queue functions a certain way, I also think the game should correct my "bad" strategic decions. As proved here, the game is clearly already correcting player's "bad" strategic decisions.Main Entry: scathe
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): scathed; scath�ing
1 : to do harm to; specifically : SCORCH, SEAR
2 : to assail with withering denunciation

Nothing I nor anyone else posted was quite scathing.

No, the game is not correcting any bad strategic decisions. All it does is in this regard is prevent you from adding an illegal number of components to a final ship design. If a planet fills with units or facilities and you order it to keep building them (either directly with adding a bunch of unit entries to the queue, or leaving them on with repeat build), it does not clear them from the queue. It should tell you in the log if a planet tried to build a facility when it was already full, like it does with units, which is not really a UI decision, so much as an oversight. Aaron Hall is not omniscient, after all.

Fifth, I really like the page you created off the Malfador site. Yeah, I know it's isn't related to the top four but so what?!? I just got tired of not seeing one there, so bugged Aaron Hall about it. Well... not really "bugged"... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Seventh, in case you're curious, I'll probably be too busy with my current SEIV game to go buy MOO3 for at least a decade.I am glad to hear that you did not find these inconveniences to be too great to stop playing the game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 25, 2003, 04:19: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

raynor

February 25th, 2003, 09:49 AM

If the planet has no more room for facilities, the game automatically deletes a 'Repeat Build' <facility> from the top of the build queue.

But, as with building units, it is very easily possible that you intended to repeat build a facility--even with a full planet--because you intended to, turn-by-turn, remove a different facility from the planet to make room for the new one.

Because the game is second-guessing me, I have to delete a facility and insert the build order every single turn.

This is clear evidence that the game is second guessing my strategic decisions.

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 10:11 AM

You did originally say that the game did not do that, and it used resources to pay for facilities that never get built.

raynor

February 25th, 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You did originally say that the game did not do that, and it used resources to pay for facilities that never get built.It's a bit confusing, yes?

Originally, I complained because I cleared the queue, and it didn't clear 'Repeat Build'. I ended up with three facilities in the queue with repeab build left on. The top item was a spaceport, and it built three of them.

Later in the discussion, someone pointed out that one of the reasons for multiple items in the build queue is so that you could repeat build a facility until the planet is full and then start producing units. They described a nifty neat new feature that looks to see if the planet is full. When it is full, the repeat build facility is removed from the queue, and the game starts with the next item.

The unique and quite unusual behavior that we discovered, though, is that once the game detects that the planet is full and deletes the top queue entry facility, it NEVER, NEVER checks that again. So, if you have a *second* facility in the queue, then the game will try forever and ever to build that item without successfully completing it. (And yes, it will waste those resources.)

DirectorTsaarx suggests an interesting use of this "feature" of the UI. You might use it to fill the planet, for example, with research centers and then start building the Computer Complex. The game would build Research Centers until the planet is full. It would detect that the planet is full and remove the research center from the queue. It would then begin building the computer complex.

The turn before the computer complex should be finished, the player could go "eject" the research complex. This creative approach would let you have four turns use of the Research Center before you ejected it to make room on the Last turn for the Computer Complex. (Normally, you wouldn't start building the Computer Complex unless you had an empty facility slot. Since it takes five turns to build the Computer Complex, you would have four or so turns of non-use for that facility slot.)

In my Last post, I was speaking specifically of the situation where you just have one facility in the queue. When the planet becomes full, the game removes this queue entry.

In one line of speaking, this default UI behavior may be described as the game "second guessing" your strategic decisions. It is easily possible to envision a scenario where you might want to repeat build facilities on a planet *after* it has become full. But the UI requires you to delete a facilty, issue a build order every single turn instead of allowing the repeat build order to continue and letting you just delete a facility every turn.

Now, that I've said that, this one should be easy:
Peter Piper picked a peck of pickeled peppers.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ February 25, 2003, 14:21: Message edited by: raynor ]

raynor

February 25th, 2003, 04:24 PM

Let me describe a much, much simpler--and quite trivial UI glitch:

In the diplomacy -> build trade screen, you have toggles that let you adjust the amount of resources you propose to give. There is one for 10,000 and another for 100,000. When you "check" one of these and then "add" resources, it does them in multiples of 10,000 or 100,000 respectively. But when you "remove" resources, it just does them in increments of 1,000.

Yeah, yeah, this is so trivial, even I'm not going to mention it outside of here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

February 25th, 2003, 05:47 PM

I think the part about the resources being lost on construction of a facility or unit that never occurs is a bug. I wouldn't call it a huge bug, but it's a bug and in a perfect world ought to be fixed. But I guess that's where we get into priorities.

I don't think you can chalk it completely up to user error though. User error should cost you the loss of construction time maybe because you weren't paying attention. But where exactly do these resources go? They aren't simply vaporised. Even if you turned around and scraped the object you just built you'd get something back. Not the entire amount, but something.

Geoschmo

Fyron

February 25th, 2003, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by raynor:
Let me describe a much, much simpler--and quite trivial UI glitch:

In the diplomacy -> build trade screen, you have toggles that let you adjust the amount of resources you propose to give. There is one for 10,000 and another for 100,000. When you "check" one of these and then "add" resources, it does them in multiples of 10,000 or 100,000 respectively. But when you "remove" resources, it just does them in increments of 1,000.

Yeah, yeah, this is so trivial, even I'm not going to mention it outside of here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Umm... you can remove them in increments of 10k or 100k too, not just 1k.

DirectorTsaarx

February 25th, 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by raynor:
I'm pretty sure there weren't any log Messages. For the game to be consistent with how it handles units, I think there should be a log entry.
Well, then that's a bug. It ought to at least give a log message when it doesn't build the facility you wanted. In fact, I can think of another way this problem could occur; say you have a small world colonized, and the colonists breathe the right atmosphere. The colony has built the first 8 of 10 facilities, is just about to finish number 9 and then you drop some extra colonists that breathe the wrong atmosphere. Now the colony is changed to a domed colony, with max. number of facilities changed to 2. Obviously, that 9th facility won't be built (max number of facilities exceeded), and there should be some kind of log message about the failure...
Originally posted by raynor:
<snip>
DirectorTsaarx: I'm not sure I understood the benefit of adding the fighter and then satellite order. Are these three approaches equivalent?

A. Your approach
1. Insert fighter build order
2. Turn on Repeat Build
3. Insert satellite build order
4. At a later time, delete the fighter build order

B. Second approach
1. Insert fighter build order
2. Turn on repeat build
3. At a later time, delete the fighter build order
4. Insert satellite build order

C. Third approach (doesn't require you to come back at a later time and builds 100 fighters in Groups of ten without user interaction)
1. Insert fighter build order
...
10. Insert 10th fighter build orderr
11. Insert satellite build order

Does that sound reasonable? It seems like the first two require you to monitor the situation every turn and then come back later. With the first approach you have already inserted the satellite order and only need to delete the fighter order when you come back. With the second approach, you have to do both the deletion and the insert when you come back. They both seem very similar to me. The third approach allows you to focus your attention elsewhere and know deterministically what will be built without user interaction. I'm not saying one way is better than the other. I'm just asking if the three are equivalent different ways to accomplish the same thing.You're exactly right. It's a question of personal preference which one works best for you. The first approach is good for when you know you'll be away from the game for a couple days, and don't want to forget about building satellites when you're finished building fighters. The second uses pretty much the same amount of mouse clicks, and works fine when you're playing multiple turns straight through. The Last approach requires more mousing, but less attention in later turns (as long as you notice when the planet starts building satellites to turn on repeat orders; but you could just as well insert multiple satellite orders). So, like everything else, each approach has its own pros and cons.