Bugs and Improvements


#61

(post deleted—not in the proper place!)


#62

Perhaps making buffers pinned/locked by default…but adding an unlock/unpin button to allow for this function for those who want it?


#63

Almost forgot about this: At first I thought I was probably the only one misreading this, but as a matter of fact, a few days later I saved a new player from buying 100 H2O for 100 ECD each because he made the same mistake. :wink: I warned him in the chat about it and he said he thought “limit” meant how many he was willing to buy.


#64

Thanks! @martin is currently working on the place order tile, so I’ll tell him!


#65

Limit is quite a standard term, imo. Not sure whether I really want to change this :slight_smile:


#66

Sure, once you understand what it means, you never forget it. (: Worst case, you learn it the hard way. I’m just not used to this type of game, so as a new player it had me confused in the beginning since I don’t know any of the standard terms of the genre.


#67

We could highlight the order’s volume in red if the limit entered exceeds a certain factor of the current price (2x for example)


#68

While I have never had a problem with this (why would I enter the same amount twoce, but never a price), I don’t mind any warnings (as long as they don’t require additional clicks), but please make sure not to implement an actual limit. If I am buying a resource for three times the “current” price, I might actually be doing it on purpose.
Also, given that the “current price” column only shows the last paid price, that might become a problem, particularly with products traded less frequently.


#69

Also, given that the “current price” column only shows the last paid price, that might become a problem, particularly with products traded less frequently.

On that note, I personally was always much more interested in the current lowest price, especially as a seller who just wanted to bid lower than the rest.


#70

Funny you’d say that…I’m preparing an update as we speak which adds a tiny button next to the price and current inventory that allows to set the limit/amount fields to these respective values. I suggested to add the current bid and ask values in the same fashion, but @molp didn’t think it was a good idea because it would lengthen the order creation form by 2 additional lines.

Opinions? :slight_smile:


#71

This evening the market is blocked for me. In the Order Chart the yellow fields make trouble.

grafik

In the PopUp for the storage location with Cibola and the four ship there was always a optional worth. With this I can buy everything. If I choose the storage location to Cibola, it tell me how much I can sell. I can’t choose another Value - like my problem in the first Test, but with no workaround. I can’t call another worth. The Text-fields to choose how much (amount) and the price (limit) blocked too and they take no numbers or signs. I can’t make a input. The market is closed for me and I think this is no effect of my UI-problem. I think here is something changed to bad function.


#72

just a few more things I noticed. of course, all based on my preferences (well, turns out, only once that matter to me :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: )

  • I would like to be able to either sort the current production list by time remaining or even have that as a default. with only a few reactors it is not that touch to see what will finish next, but in mid-game and end-game it will become less clear.
    particularly when working under lean production conditions, it would help plan the next production orders

  • being able to re-arrange the production queue via drag&drop would be great

  • I think, it might have been suggested before, but I can’t find it right now. the inventory gets bigger and bigger. I would like to see an option to have the inventory sorted by material type (as on the exchange). I wouldn’t necessarily like to see another drop down menu, but maybe a check box or something. if activated, you still have the inventory list sorted by whatever you chose, but sub-divided into material types. for me, a small line between the groups would be enough seperation.

  • also regarding the inventory, an actual table without the icons would be great. while I really like the look of the current inventory, I feel like it might loose clearity in mid-game, particularly for traders or players with diverse stock

just my 2 cents.
have a great weekend, everyone


#73

That’s a good idea!

Also a good idea, I created an entry in our issue tracker. Drag and Drop requires a bit of code fiddling, so I postpone the implementation for later.

Yep, we are not happy with the inventory at the moment too. There is definitely going to be some changes :slight_smile: I like the idea of having the items sorted by material category and I also think we need a better list view of the inventory.


#74

It’s the usual dilemma: On the one hand, tables are just the ideal representation for stuff like this. But they simply look like Excel in screenshots, which doesn’t help in selling the game. :slight_smile:


#75

well, world domination isn’t for free and that might just be the price to pay… :wink:

@molp

that would work for me. I also just thought that I always have a input line available anyhow. at least on my current UI setup, I usually have a chat window available. it might be worth considering allowing the CMD functions in the chat window by defining a leading tag like # or / or whatnot.


#76

I hope other player’s agree with most of my suggestions here. Would hate to sound like I was complaining, and about personal preferences at that…
also, @martin and @molp, if you want the input to be about game mechanics rather than UI issues, please let me know.

some more of my two cent: the CXOS is becoming more and more clattered. For some open orders, I have to scroll back sometimes 7 or 8 pages (yeah, nobody wants to buy nitrogen for some reason… ). would be great if the table could be made sortable.
also, when increasing the size of the window, the table scales sideways, but not in length. while having it update its length while increasing the buffer size might be too much to program, it would feel like plenty, if it were to update the list length when turning pages.


#77

Every feedback is welcome. If you have an opinion on game mechanics, let’s have it!

Yes, CXOS needs some love! Here is an explanation why it works like it does: When playing for hundreds of days a lot of orders will accumulate, so displaying all of them as soon as the player opens CXOS is not a good idea. Hence @martin implemented the paging. Currently the amount of entries per page is fixed, so if you enlarge or shrink the tile there will be scrollbars or empty space. Finding out how many lines will fit the tile is not an easy task, since the lines have no fixed height: If horizontal space is limited they will have linebreaks and therefore be higher.

Here is an idea: How about we keep the table, remove the paging controls and add a link to the end of the table “show more entries”. Clicking on it will add the older entries to the end of the list. We can also add some filter controls (e.g. only show placed order etc) and actions (e.g. remove all filled (buy/sell) orders). We have the same functionality in the chat, if you want to see it in action.


#78

sounds good.
for me, sorted by open/finished, sell/buy, and time would be great, preference in that order.
It would also be great, if deleting a “partially finished” order would not result in it disappearing alltogether, but rather change status to finished (to make clear it is no longer active). only a second click should delete it.
While I usually do not like extra clicks, I have used the CXOS to stop currently ongoing offers from me. however, for the purpose of archieving that trade, it would be great if it were not to disappear.


#79

while I only just got there and thus can not really assess the situation, here is a thought:

it feels like the costs for maintaining a population is too low for higher class citizens. while pioneers should be easy to keep happy, a steeper climb in costs could have positive effects on balance.

right now, while I certainly feel the costs of maintaining settlers and technicans, I see no reason for someone not to invest in having everything themself and thus be self-sufficient. right now, I have to pay about 750 ECD a day to maintain my CHP, CLR and ELP. I do not know how long the production times of prodcuts from a SCA are, however, I am assuming I can produce all products for a BCU and thus a CM in two to three days.
assuming, I produce the PG myself, a reasonable price for a CM could be around 7000, if you have to buy the PG 10k ECD. that sounds really cheap, unless you want players to colonize the universe rapidly.

making populations more expensive would set an incentive to only build parts of the reactors and have others produce the rest, thus creating more trade. the higher demand for consumables will imrpove the market from a farmers perspective, while keeping costs low for those players venturing into harvesting raw materials (by that I mean all ores and natural resources or raw foods). players, that want to go deeper can do that, but need more capital to achieve it. a product like a new CM should, in my opinion, not be available so easily. it took me about two weeks so far plus another one (conservatively calculating) and I would have been there. that sounds too early for a later game.
and even, if it becomes harder to achieve, in a public game, there will be more players going for it anyway. either by building it all or cooperating.

in fewer words: make higher level population harder to maintain to make vertical integration tougher, as well… :wink:


#80

also one way to make the people trading more and to make raw resources more needed would be to implement some way of destroying of higher tier material, so far all ores that get produced end up in some form of building and there for on some point in time the offering of raw resources are not profitable cause of the saturation of the hole market…
With consumables as the name suggest are consumed and get deleted from the game it creates something like a on going demand and there for only if too many players are self sustainable it will break the market…
so i would suggest some sort of buildings or other costs, that gets destroyed after a defined time ore some sort of event, that forces the player to invest higher tier materials to gain even more higher tier materials or so, so you could possible creats jobs for thausends of players, to provide materials and other things, to reach a higher goal for maybe big alliances, that invest these materials in there own stations, or into public events… so the main problem currently is there are no way to “destroy/invest” raw material and this creates a saturation of the market.

On the other hand, and i realized this right now: the first three tiers of population and production are maybe only the base, and the averrage player should be possible to be self-sufficient until he reaches lets say tier 3 population and everything futher requires to trade with others and in the current sate of the tests, we are not able to reach this point and there for it looks to us like it is unballaced but its only the early game what we can see right now.

i hope this was not to confusing, but feel free to ask if it is :slight_smile:

greetings PatteKi