I think auto provision for shipments should be enabled by default. It’s used 99.9% of the time and only causes problems when someone forgets to enable it.
I feel like I’ve gotten 5 or 10 of this exact faction contract. My HQ → specifically to the TO-392 system. It doesn’t feel very random. Not sure if intentional, and it’s not very important, but I feel like I should still report it. There are a few other extremely common destinations to be sent to as well, Midway is another one of them.
I have NEVER ONCE been sent to Danakil or the 442 system, even though it is literally next door and by far the largest\busiest nearby world.
Renaming a brand new ship from unnamed to your target name causes FLT to crash. You can continue editing the names of other ships, and these ships without issue. Only the first rename has the bug.
I have nearly 400 orders on my CXOS list from my market making activities. Anytime I load APEX, this list must be loaded. This takes anywhere from 10 to 20 seconds because it fails to load new pages many times.
Is there anything that could be done? Maybe make a toggle that disables the page-scrolling and loads the entire list instantly.
The order for ship flight destinations has an order that I am not able to reason about. Each time I do a flight destination I need to scan the full list to find the destination because they are not in an order that I understand.
This contrasts with BS and PROD commands where the order is sorted by system name, then planet name. This is why Harmonia (ZV-896b) is at the top because Antares IV sorts to the top of the list. This is more apparent in the Production panel than in the BS panel since Production includes the system identifier.
Circinus - Circa and Circinus - Circe are adjacent so that even if they were out of order by system identifier (compare Bastion - Titan and Bastion - Frost) they are still in an order that is stable and predictable.
This is the 9th or 10th time I’ve done this. I always bring extra, but, sometimes it just isn’t on your side and it isn’t enough.
There are two problems that cause this.
BRA shows you what it needs, now. Your ship won’t get there for at least 12, maybe as much as a few days. Things change between that time.
BRA shows you what it needs… when APEX is first loaded in your web browser. If it’s been open for 24hr, it shows 24hr stale data.
Rather than trying to engineer complex solutions to both of these problems: I propose a really simple one. So lie to me.
BRA should give me the BOM for… 24-48hr in the future. Better yet, a configurable value the user can define. This, in the real world, solves the problem.
I really wish someone would fix this population bug that has been happening for two years and has been identified on several planets - most notably on xg-751b.
This issue has been reported and confirmed in the past.
The designers set up a specific process for distributing workers when the POPR runs. Unfortunately, that process does not always work correctly and certain players end up getting short-changed. On xg-751b every time there is a shortage of engineers and scientists 100% of that shortage gets taken out of MemoryAlpha’s base. He doesn’t have the largest base, he doesn’t employ the most workers, he doesn’t do anything that should cause his base to be underemployed.
MA has decided to leave since he is constantly getting screwed which sucks because he has been governor for a long time and has been a great partner in managing the planet as well as a key corporation member.
I second this. While new things are nice - this bug has been known for a while and considering that it ALWAYS hits MA - I would vote for this fix to take top priority.
Is there some other issue causing this bug not to be addressed?
Probably. I’d need more data about other bases to be sure. But considering there are nearly 300 bases on Phobos and a bunch employ scientists it seems unlikely that 1/3 of the shortage should be coming out of 1 base. It is possible though that you are just one of a few that employs 100% scientists while most of the others have a mix of engineers & scientists which would be a factor. i.e. - if there are 48 bases employing
100 scientists and 3 bases employing 400 then the round-robin system would distribute 100 to everyone leaving only 46 to dole out to the 3 bases of 400.
Switching a few of your SLs to SEs would likely help you out.
When I initially investigated this issue a couple years back I had been sponsoring several SE bases. At that time I did confirm the same problem with engineers affecting one of those bases on Phobos. In that case, I had a full base of SEs while his was only partly full yet engineer shortages were coming out of his base instead of mine. That verified that distribution was not being done correctly.
It could be. If 3 people had 800 sci bases they should all be taking the hit. I’d guess there are quite a few 400 bases. I have a 400 there and I’m 400/400.
It depends. We still have the 75% retention rate in place, meaning that if you had 400 ENGs last week you’ll start with 300 assigned ENGs and then get additional ones assigned via round robin.
For example, if you have 4 strong players with 400/400 ENGs and a new player comes along with 0 / 400. The ENG count is 1500 in the first week the expected results are 4 times 360/400 and 60/400. The next week it is 4 times 345/400 and 120/400. And so on.
Maybe that retention rate is too high, because it takes a new player quite a few weeks to get onto a similar level as the existing players.
Molp has it correct - this is a brand new base which was just built. I’ve only ever participated in one pop report distribution. So 75% retention mechanic adds a bit of momentum to the output number (similar to % happiness in population). I didn’t know this round-robin mechanic also had a similar weighted averaging.
Side note - really simple feature request. A check box or some other tool. “output production lines to warehouse”.
How awesome would that be? We would see warehouse usages skyrocket and it opens up so many interesting opportunities.
I forgot about the retention thing. I just assumed that you’d had this base for a while. In any event, this does not negate the fact that the bug does actually exist as it has been affecting MA on xg-751b for two years. New bases always get 100% employment while workers are removed from his base. He does not retain 75%. If his base had 400 engineers before the POPR runs if that POPR shows a planetary shortage of 300 then his base will have 100 engineers until the next POPR.
As for the retention rate being at 75% - I think that is good. The existing bases put time and expense into building up the workforce. It should take a new player some time and expense to build up theirs as well. Actually, what usually happens (as is the case on xg-751b) when a new base causes a worker shortage it is the existing players that foot the bill for more POPI and ADMN programs to fill up the needed workers.
Can we standardize the storting of planet lists across all buffers? BRA is different from INV is different from BS. It’s getting really annoying to find where my planets are on this list, something I need to do dozens of times a day.
Additionally, the sorting being a mix of names and numbers is very difficult to keep track of when systems get named. The sorting shouldn’t change when this happens as well, and, perhaps there is a more elegant solution to the order in which they are sorted…
I started working on that this week. It will be included in the next maintenance release. So far I did BS, PROD and SFC.
That’s a tough one. Ideally we want an alphabetic sort order, but obviously that’ll change when a system or planet gets names. Sorting by the natural id only works well if the planets and systems have no names.
