Planetarion Forums

Makhil · 8 Sep 2007, 14:43

I suggest 2 changes:

1. instead of a single 'confirm' tick box, we have a tickbox in front of each ship type ordered, to be able to cancel only part of the order.

2. the possibility to add negative numbers to an existing order to substract ships (and either lower the prod time or get some cash back).

Allfather · 8 Sep 2007, 14:59

Why?

Monroe · 8 Sep 2007, 15:40

I think negative ships would be confusing for people, and possibly lead to complaints, but the idea of being able to cancel specific part of an order isn't a bad idea.

Mzyxptlk · 8 Sep 2007, 15:51

I agree that some more flexibility is needed, especially to undo additions that were added to orders this tick. However, neither of these ideas will contribute to this flexibility. The problem lies with the current formula. An example:

I order 100k Beetle. This (assuming neutral race, government and population) costs me 34.5m res and 203892 PU. So far, so good. Now I change my mind (or "change my mind") and subtract 5 batches of 10k Beetle. An order of 10k Beetle costs 3.45m res and 55922 PU. Logically, that'd mean an order of minus 10k Beetle would costs -55922 PU.

203892 + 5 * -55922 = -75718 PU

-75718 PU for 50k Beetle? Oops!

Zaejii · 9 Sep 2007, 02:58

would be neat to be able to do that though (the proper way) mz. be able to modify additions made on the current tick w/o having to mess up everything you had in there before.

Mzyxptlk · 9 Sep 2007, 03:05

Yeah, it would. I'm not sure how much coding that'd be though, and if it'd be worth it.

As for the ideas in this thread, basically they'd require either a linear formula, or one based on total cost of the order, rather than the cost of the combination of the original order plus all individual additions.

Aedolaws · 9 Sep 2007, 18:20

NO. We don't need to do such a thing and why would we want to?

What is the purpose? Is it to allow players to cancel orders they just placed? are we not allowed to build multiple factories precisely to achieve this? Or would you rather make it all work as if it were a single factory?

Or is purpose to have more "flexibility"? But what more flexibility you want? The fact is that we got the choice to (1) stock-pile resources (2) have multiple factories (3) order and manage our production as we please, including cancelling orders, small or big, placed 5 days ago or last tick, AND to get back resources accordingly.

If people want to avoid the risk of being stuck with unnecessary ships, or if they are in a hurry and need resources back, then they simply need more factories. As of now, players can place orders on different factories and when they need to cancel a fraction of their current ships on production, they simply shut one, or two, or whatever # of the factories.

Why mess up something that is not broken?

Mzyxptlk · 9 Sep 2007, 18:49

Because even though something is not broken doesn't mean it can't be improved. Because several people in this thread have pointed out they like the idea, as well as others long before the thread was even in existance. Because you can choose not to use it and not be negatively affected at all. And simply because it's a good idea.

That's why.

Aedolaws · 9 Sep 2007, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Because even though something is not broken doesn't mean it can't be improved.
That's why.

I agree. But, it should not be "improved" if the "improving" creates potential problems and added complexity while failing to substatially improve performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Because several people in this thread have pointed out they like the idea, as well as others long before the thread was even in existance.

Yeh, I am sure people also like sex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

Because you can choose not to use it and not be negatively affected at all.

I disagree. The proposed idea indirectly gives an advantage to those people who like to hide their ships. As it is, this feature is already being over-exploited. To give people yet another incentive to hide ships would not be in the best interest of game dynamics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

And simply because it's a good idea.

No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver.

Makhil · 10 Sep 2007, 02:00

as a minimum, i'd like to have the Fi/Co - Fr/De - CR/BS productions not placed on the same order even if ordered at the same time.
Would make sense to be able to cancel FR/DE without cancelling the rest, as it is not built in the same factories...

Mzyxptlk · 10 Sep 2007, 02:14

Your entire post is utter rubbish, except for this slightly less rubbish bit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aedolaws

I disagree. The proposed idea indirectly gives an advantage to those people who like to hide their ships. As it is, this feature is already being over-exploited. To give people yet another incentive to hide ships would not be in the best interest of game dynamics.

How so? Didn't you say earlier you can do the exact same thing by using multiple orders?

Additionally, I would like to direct your attention to this quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mz

As for the ideas in this thread, basically they'd require either a linear formula, or one based on total cost of the order, rather than the cost of the combination of the original order plus all individual additions.

Doubtlessly you'll notice this will get rid of all percieved issues with hiding ships in the production queue, thereby rendering your earlier post moot. Nice effort though.

P.S. I agree with Makhil, I've never really understood why that was ever possible in the first place. Getting rid of cross-factory orders potentially saves a lot of trouble. Think 1 large finished fr/de order on many medium factories and 1 small unfinished order on few light factories. Even though a linear formula partly fixes this, I'd still like to see it implemented. Just to close up the last few holes.