Suggestion for stockpiles that should solve a few problems.

[immortius]

I'd be a lot more receptive to these ideas if you could persuade me to see the problems that you keep referring to.

I think you're just too experienced with the way the game works at present to get a sense of the accessibility problems which are the underlying issue. Sure, it is possible to manage all these things correctly - if you understand exactly how they all work. But it is extremely unintuitive to have to destroy stockpiles to get containers into them and the contents into containers. Or to get rid of contents you no longer want. And I have no idea how you can pre-fill your seed stockpile with sacks when you can't even make sacks until after the first harvest. If I as a player want to move wood out of one stockpile to place in another, it is resource management regardless of whether I have to go through a 5 step process or simply untick a box and let goblins take care of it, so why make it difficult (Or perhaps there should be a three-state box - accepting, holding, rejecting)?

[Mike-al]

First of all, why wouldn't you leave clubs checked? If you are saying you want to stop storing clubs but keep 20 there as a reserve, that's the whole point of my post--uncheck it and set the number to keep to 20. It will keep 20 there and place new ones elsewhere.

I was asking Maklak, actually, as that was his idea I was referring to.

I don't know why you don't get the container issue--they are just terrible to work with. Can you explain to me how you store containers for future use--like sacks for flower? I'm at a complete loss for this one. I don't want any number "held" there, I just want a stockpile that stores nothing but empty sacks for flower or empty crates prepared for instant use when I create a new stockpile.

Why do you need that? Why don't you just put the containers straight into the stockpile you want? The "container stockpile" seems like a totally unnecessary step. And if you want one, then make your container stockpile and then dismantle it. At that point your goblins will begin moving the containers into stockpiles that accept them.

Did you actually try doing any of this?

Honestly it seems like you should just be able to check the box, but when I do it "Holds" 10 (I don't want any kept in that stockpile). When you set it to keep 0 it deselects it. I guess I could set it to keep 1 and keep the box checked, but that's confusing.

I don't understand this at all. You want the stockpile to take containers but not take containers? That sounds crazy.

Also, along these lines, if I want a 3x3 stockpile to hold 4 containers, How do I keep excess containers from piling up in this stockpile? I want the boxes to go to the stockpile I designate for storage.

Um, by setting the allowed number of containers at 4 in the stockpile menu. Then the stockpile will only take four containers. Again, have you actually tried doing this?

You seem like you have played the game enough to be comfortable with the UI as it stands which is great but you should recognize that your experience will make it difficult for you to judge what actually does and doesn't make sense to someone who doesn't already understand the inner workings and quirks of the game.

I don't think that's particularly fair; I'm not that used to this UI. I just genuinely don't understand what your problem is.

On a broader note, what I'm definitely not comfortable with is the attitude I think is becoming prevalent on this forum. If this is an unwarranted or unfair impression, then I apologize, but I genuinely get the feeling that people are taking the approach that as soon as they encounter something in the game they don't immediately understand they won't try to figure out how it works but will instead complain on the forums that whatever they're struggling with is "a nightmare" or "impossible" or "unintuitive". Trial and error is how people learn things, especially gaming. We can never, even if this game is developed in a million years, come up with an interface that is so intuitive that anyone who starts the game up will immediately understand everything.

[Mike-al]

I think you're just too experienced with the way the game works at present to get a sense of the accessibility problems which are the underlying issue. Sure, it is possible to manage all these things correctly - if you understand exactly how they all work.

And to understand exactly how they work, people should try to find out. I believe the biggest accessibility issue here is an unwillingness to actually sit down and learn how the game works.

But it is extremely unintuitive to have to destroy stockpiles to get containers into them and the contents into containers.

I agree that if you needed to do that, it would be extremely unintuitive. But you don't. Where do you get this idea?

Or to get rid of contents you no longer want.

Use them for something or dismantle the stockpile. Is this a problem big enough to warrant changing the interface? How can it be so difficult to dismantle a stockpile and build another one where it used to be?

And I have no idea how you can pre-fill your seed stockpile with sacks when you can't even make sacks until after the first harvest.

Really? I thought I saw a wild blueleaf tree or two on the map. And anyway, that wasn't the question.

If I as a player want to move wood out of one stockpile to place in another, it is resource management regardless of whether I have to go through a 5 step process or simply untick a box and let goblins take care of it, so why make it difficult (Or perhaps there should be a three-state box - accepting, holding, rejecting)?

No it isn't. By that logic, if you check a box that says "build goblin camp" and let goblins take care of it, it's resource management. I'm not saying this is analogous, but still. And again, are you really saying that this is a big enough problem to warrant changing a working interface? In my opinion, these are fairly artificial problems.

And how would that work, anyway? When you change a stockpile to "holding", would that mean that new items are no longer brought in and items are no longer taken out for use? Or that how much the stockpile is holding at the time you check "holding" is the amount of things that should be being kept in the stockpile at all times, so that if some are taken out, they'll get replaced? This seems a lot more confusing to me than the current system.

[immortius]

And to understand exactly how they work, people should try to find out. I believe the biggest accessibility issue here is an unwillingness to actually sit down and learn how the game works.

Sure, people should work out some things by themselves - how to best design a camp, how to avoid destruction by fire, and so forth. But controls and UI should not require external resources to master. If I make a terrible game with an extremely complex and non-intuitive control scheme, should I just blame the players for not spending the time reading guides and forum threads? Accessibility is a concern, and is in fact one of the prime drivers behind Goblin Camp existing at all from what I can tell. Perhaps you don't have an issue with how it works, but obviously it is an issue for the wider community and accessibility means catering for a wider audience. Players shouldn't need to look up how to add sacks to an existing seed stockpile, or how to move wood from one stockpile to another.

I agree that if you needed to do that, it would be extremely unintuitive. But you don't. Where do you get this idea?

You have to if they're already filled with items. Even if they're items that fit into the containers. As explained previously. I know you suggest planning ahead as well, but that requires you to know the game ahead of time which new players won't. See above comment about not requiring people to spend hours reading guides, which also removes the element of discovery which is one of the best parts of playing a new game. Basically new players will inevitably hit a situation where they've made a mistake, and want to move stuff, look for the UI to do it, fail to find it and delete their stockpiles in an effort to force things. Then come here and make a suggestion to improve the UI only to get blasted by you. Nice.

Use them for something or dismantle the stockpile. Is this a problem big enough to warrant changing the interface? How can it be so difficult to dismantle a stockpile and build another one where it used to be?

Yes, I already said it is possible that way. The point is it should be available in the UI in a way that is more obvious. And since when did problems have to be of a sufficient size to warrant a suggestion?

Really? I thought I saw a wild blueleaf tree or two on the map. And anyway, that wasn't the question.

You're the one who said we should prefill our stockpiles with containers before using them. But obviously it isn't possible for the initial seed stockpile. It also isn't likely to happen that way for first time players as they don't have sufficient knowledge to plan ahead.

No it isn't. By that logic, if you check a box that says "build goblin camp" and let goblins take care of it, it's resource management. I'm not saying this is analogous, but still. And again, are you really saying that this is a big enough problem to warrant changing a working interface? In my opinion, these are fairly artificial problems.

Having a cleaner interface to do the same thing is not the same as a win button. The core of most of these suggestions is a better interface to do the same thing - get items moved from one stockpile to another, or getting items placed in containers in another or the same stockpile. At the moment this can all be done via destroying and recreated stockpiles. Having some nicer UI options still requires goblins to move things and thus has a cost, so what's the problem? If your only issue is that the current system is fine then that isn't a complaint at all. On the creation and storage of containers before they are needed, there is an opportunity cost to creating containers that aren't being used immediately - both with the loss of materials in creating them, the labor for creation and initial storage, and then further labor when they need to be moved to their final stockpile. Being able to get the containers moved to their correct stockpile doesn't remove these costs, and thus doesn't remove the resource management aspect. Time is also a resource, so perhaps a player is trying to get ready for making a stockpile in a forested area they are clearing, and are in a rush to be done before harvest or something. That is a judgement the player must make, and the game would be better for the ability for players to have that choice.

And how would that work, anyway? When you change a stockpile to "holding", would that mean that new items are no longer brought in and items are no longer taken out for use? Or that how much the stockpile is holding at the time you check "holding" is the amount of things that should be being kept in the stockpile at all times, so that if some are taken out, they'll get replaced? This seems a lot more confusing to me than the current system.

I guess accepting is the same as a tick at the moment (new goods of that type can be stored, stored items can be used), holding is the same as not ticked now (no new goods of that type can be stored, stored items can be used), with rejected meaning that items of that type can be used but are also actively moved to other stockpiles if possible. Similar to Caesar 3, although that also had "Stockpiling" where items weren't used.

On a broader note, what I'm definitely not comfortable with is the attitude I think is becoming prevalent on this forum. If this is an unwarranted or unfair impression, then I apologize, but I genuinely get the feeling that people are taking the approach that as soon as they encounter something in the game they don't immediately understand they won't try to figure out how it works but will instead complain on the forums that whatever they're struggling with is "a nightmare" or "impossible" or "unintuitive".

I'm not comfortable with the attitude of responding to suggestions with "you're wrong", "that's crazy" or otherwise in a non-constructive way. Or the "ain't broke, don't fix" approach to a game still in alpha/beta/whatever. Some suggestions will be bad, but even then there is something to be learnt from what the user is having trouble with.

Trial and error is how people learn things, especially gaming. We can never, even if this game is developed in a million years, come up with an interface that is so intuitive that anyone who starts the game up will immediately understand everything.

Maybe not, but there's nothing wrong with wanting the interface to be better, is there? Especially where the interface doesn't impact on the gameplay mechanics themselves. Part of a good game is opening up features gradually so a player can learn them over time too.

[Impaler]

I've been watching this thread for a while now with great dismay at your statement Mike-al, immortius finally came out and said what I'd been thinking for some time now but it looks like it's even worse.

And to understand exactly how they work, people should try to find out. I believe the biggest accessibility issue here is an unwillingness to actually sit down and learn how the game works.

Frankly this is the attitude that ruined Dwarf Fortress The player should not HAVE to struggle to learn the UI, that is literally the single most defining feature of Goblin Camp design. But their is still more progress to be made and anyone who things the UI or the underlying system is anywhere near perfect is fooling themselves and while you don't say that out-right you clearly off that attitude in all your posts. Any time someone says 'X is difficult to control' or 'Y would be easier if Z' your response is "No you twit do steps A, B, C, D like I do" without even addressing the merits of the idea or acknowledge ANY shortcomings in the game. Your basically saying the game is perfect and the player is the problem and it's downright counter productive on a forum that should be about making and exploring suggestions.

[Walker]

I don't know why you don't get the container issue--they are just terrible to work with.

Can you explain to me how you store containers for future use--like sacks for flower? I'm at a complete loss for this one. I don't want any number "held" there, I just want a stockpile that stores nothing but empty sacks for flower or empty crates prepared for instant use when I create a new stockpile.

You don't need a stockpile to store crates or baskets for future use. Just build them; they'll remain in the workshops until needed.

This would work for sacks and barrels as well, if they weren't constantly being moved about. The way things were supposed to work in 0.15, as I understood it, is that containers are sorted by contents, and you could thus create stockpile accepting nothing except sacks or barrels (check it and set the number high enough. The number is the upper limit for containers the stockpile will take), and that would work. They would then be moved to containers accepting their contents as needed. Unfortunately it doesn't quite work, as full containers will still be stored there, up to the limit, but that is a bug.

If I understand you correctly, you want a stockpile for empty containers, that could be moved to some future stockpile? Generally, that won't work in Goblin Camp. The thing to understand is that, in Goblin Camp, containers are a fixture of a stockpile. Once it's there it's there. (Though goblins will grab empty barrels or sacks from any convenient stockpile.)

However, that doesn't mean you can't get the functionality you want. Like I said, you can leave crates and baskets waiting at the workshop (it won't affect productivity or anything), and you can create one stockpile for barrels, and for drinks stockpiles only accept drinks and not barrels. That should also work for sacks, but there appears to be a bug there.

Honestly it seems like you should just be able to check the box, but when I do it "Holds" 10 (I don't want any kept in that stockpile). When you set it to keep 0 it deselects it. I guess I could set it to keep 1 and keep the box checked, but that's confusing.

You seem to be little confused about the meaning of that number. It is the upper limit. Nothing is "held"; empty sacks and barrels will still be grabbed from there.

Also, along these lines, if I want a 3x3 stockpile to hold 4 containers, How do I keep excess containers from piling up in this stockpile? I want the boxes to go to the stockpile I designate for storage.

That's precisely what the limit number is for. It tells how many containers will be sent to that stockpile. If you want that 3x3 to have 4 containers, then set the limit to 4, and no more will be brought there. It's your best friend when distributing containers.

You seem like you have played the game enough to be comfortable with the UI as it stands which is great but you should recognize that your experience will make it difficult for you to judge what actually does and doesn't make sense to someone who doesn't already understand the inner workings and quirks of the game.

No one understands all the quirks of the game before they play it, but everyone who plays it can learn them. Your personal scheme will make sense to you, but not necessarily to anyone else. The container system in GC might not feel intuitive for you, but it is in fact simple, easy to learn, and quite efficient once you learn it.

[Walker]

I'd be a lot more receptive to these ideas if you could persuade me to see the problems that you keep referring to.

I think you're just too experienced with the way the game works at present to get a sense of the accessibility problems which are the underlying issue.

GC is in way too early stages to worry about accessibility. I think you mean learnability.

Sure, it is possible to manage all these things correctly - if you understand exactly how they all work.

Surely, one needs to learn how things work in every game one plays. Or in any endeavor, for that matter. Yes, before one learns how things are done they won't be able to do things correctly. I'm not sure it's possible to design any interface that doesn't have a learning curve.

But it is extremely unintuitive to have to destroy stockpiles to get containers into them

You can't get anything into a stockpile you destroy.

and the contents into containers. Or to get rid of contents you no longer want.

Intuitiveness is overrated, it is enough that things are learnable. The biggest problem with GC is that there's no manual. Providing that seems a more realistic way of addressing learnability issues than attempting to create a perfectly intuitive interface. Everybody has different expectations for how things work, possibly shaped by other games. There's nothing intuitive about Ctrl+V for paste, for example, but it is easy to learn, and quite effective when learned. That said, I think it is actually pretty intuitive that things will no longer be in a stockpile once that stockpile is removed. Also, it should be a fairly simple observation that one cell in a stockpile fits one item, and excepting this not to hold for one type of item is not the most reasonable expectation.

But if a mechanic for replacing an item with a container was introduced, I'd be cool with that. That would address many of the complaints, and would make life a little easier. I don't think anyone in this thread has opposed such a change.

And I have no idea how you can pre-fill your seed stockpile with sacks when you can't even make sacks until after the first harvest.

I suppose you are referring to Mike-al's three-step instructions. I think he's exaggerating. To make a nice seed stockpile you don't need to fill it with sacks, it's enough that sacks keep coming faster than seeds, which is entirely manageable.

And why couldn't you start making sacks before the first harvest? The forest is full of wild blueleaf. I usually send my goblins to gather enough for a sack or two before the first harvest starts getting processed.

Are you going to make a nice seed stockpile the first time you play? No. But I think it unreasonable to expect the first time to be perfect. That's part of the learning curve. You mess up, tear it down and start again.

If I as a player want to move wood out of one stockpile to place in another, it is resource management regardless of whether I have to go through a 5 step process or simply untick a box and let goblins take care of it, so why make it difficult (Or perhaps there should be a three-state box - accepting, holding, rejecting)?

That's precisely the point. Why make things more difficult? Currently, if you want to move wood from one stockpile to another, you allow wood for the second, and dismantle the first. That's not a 5 step process: I count two. With your system, you set 'accepting' for the second stockpile, and check 'rejecting' for the next one, which is also a two-step process. Only now the interface is a little more complex for the sake of an activity I'm not sure ought to be encouraged, and theme-wise, tearing things down seems a little more orcy.

The RFE for moving things between stockpiles has sat in GC issue tracker since maybe 1.1, but apparently it hasn't been considered a high priority.

[Walker]

And to understand exactly how they work, people should try to find out. I believe the biggest accessibility issue here is an unwillingness to actually sit down and learn how the game works.

Sure, people should work out some things by themselves
But controls and UI should not require external resources to master. Players shouldn't need to look up how to add sacks to an existing seed stockpile, or how to move wood from one stockpile to another.

No, players shouldn't need to look things up in external resources. Somebody should WTFM so the players could RTFM. But meanwhile, the players still have the apparently old-fashioned option of trying things out. And I can't see how "first you place a container, then you put things in a container" can be so counter-intuitive as some people claim: that's how real world works. I don't think anyone here would try placing a bookshelf over a stack of books and expect the books to end up in it.

And whether that's intuitive or not is immaterial; you only need to learn it, and learn it once. My problem with many of the supposed fixes suggested on this forum is that they don't actually propose a clearly superior system, or at all address the underlying learnability issue: they merely swap one set of expectations for another. This is more a problem of instruction than implementation, IMO. I'd prefer that instruction was from a manual in the game or accompanying the game rather than a wiki or this forum, obviously.

Basically new players will inevitably hit a situation where they've made a mistake, and want to move stuff, look for the UI to do it, fail to find it and delete their stockpiles in an effort to force things. Then come here and make a suggestion to improve the UI only to get blasted by you.

So they have hit upon the solution, all without spending hours on wikis and guides. Good for them. Then they come here and make an often ill-considered suggestion to change the interface to something more complicated for no appreciable gain. Surely their suggestions are open to criticism.

Use them for something or dismantle the stockpile. Is this a problem big enough to warrant changing the interface? How can it be so difficult to dismantle a stockpile and build another one where it used to be?

Yes, I already said it is possible that way. The point is it should be available in the UI in a way that is more obvious.

It needs to be made more obvious, but that doesn't necessarily mean introducing a new way of doing it. Pointing out that the current way to do it is the way to do it would also work.

Is this a problem big enough to warrant changing the interface?

And since when did problems have to be of a sufficient size to warrant a suggestion?

Your moving goalposts here; "warrant changing the interface", is different than "warrant suggestion". Sure, talk is cheap on the forum: suggest away. But actually implementing an interface change uses resources, specifically, the limited development time of a handful of devs. This forum seems an appropriate place to discuss the relative importance of proposed changes.

On a broader note, what I'm definitely not comfortable with is the attitude I think is becoming prevalent on this forum. If this is an unwarranted or unfair impression, then I apologize, but I genuinely get the feeling that people are taking the approach that as soon as they encounter something in the game they don't immediately understand they won't try to figure out how it works but will instead complain on the forums that whatever they're struggling with is "a nightmare" or "impossible" or "unintuitive".

I'm not comfortable with the attitude of responding to suggestions with "you're wrong", "that's crazy" or otherwise in a non-constructive way. Or the "ain't broke, don't fix" approach to a game still in alpha/beta/whatever.

What? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a perfect attitude for a game this early in development. When there are so many features yet to be implemented it's senseless to endlessly polish something that is already implemented and working. Time for polish is when bigger things are in.

Some suggestions will be bad, but even then there is something to be learnt from what the user is having trouble with.

True. They highlight a potential trouble area, but critiquing the suggestions is also similarly valuable.

Trial and error is how people learn things, especially gaming. We can never, even if this game is developed in a million years, come up with an interface that is so intuitive that anyone who starts the game up will immediately understand everything.

Maybe not, but there's nothing wrong with wanting the interface to be better, is there? Especially where the interface doesn't impact on the gameplay mechanics themselves. Part of a good game is opening up features gradually so a player can learn them over time too.

True, but an interface change to afford one's preferred style of play doesn't automatically make a game better. And some of the suggestions here end up with every item in every stockpile surrounded by checkboxes and sliders, and I don't think that would contribute to gradual learning. On that front, I think, GC is doing well, with every tier opening new constructions, and every new construction introducing new items, though the tier progression may still be a little fast.

[immortius]

The fundamental point is I dislike the way that suggestions are being treated on the suggestion forum at the moment. Sure, say how the existing interface can let you achieve something, maybe provide some constructive criticism - but the extreme disdain and need to refute every idea which is rampant at the moment will just drive away suggesters. I trust Generic Container will exercise judgement when reading the suggestions.

That's precisely the point. Why make things more difficult? Currently, if you want to move wood from one stockpile to another, you allow wood for the second, and dismantle the first. That's not a 5 step process: I count two. With your system, you set 'accepting' for the second stockpile, and check 'rejecting' for the next one, which is also a two-step process. Only now the interface is a little more complex for the sake of an activity I'm not sure ought to be encouraged, and theme-wise, tearing things down seems a little more orcy

Those two processes aren't equivalent. The first is totally destroying a stockpile to move all its contents elsewhere. The second moves part of the contents while the original stockpile still exists. With the current system the equivalent process is to destroy the stockpile, reconstruct it, set it up again to allow the contents you want to remain only, allow the contents you want moved in the other, and then goblins have to replace all the contents in its new and original home as relevant. Which is a 4 step process with some additional jobs produced. Or you could just destroy the parts of the stockpile with certain items on it, which is fiddly.

Perhaps Accept/Hold/Refuse is not the best words (Import/Hold/Export? Hoard/Hold/Liquidate?), and perhaps not the best mechanism anyway - it was something I just threw out on the fly. A lot of suggestions are like that. But even if the suggestion itself is flawed, there may be part of a good idea in there. If we discussed it perhaps we'ld come up with a nice new system that is even better, maybe by combining it with some other suggestions. At worst nothing will come of it.

GC is in way too early stages to worry about accessibility. I think you mean learnability.

Actually I mean usability, of which learnability is a subset and accessibility is related. I wasn't trying to be technically correct and honestly I wasted too much time writing that post anyway. And this one. Takes hours and then someone nitpicks through the whole thing.

Surely, one needs to learn how things work in every game one plays. Or in any endeavor, for that matter. Yes, before one learns how things are done they won't be able to do things correctly. I'm not sure it's possible to design any interface that doesn't have a learning curve.

This isn't about claiming that the game needs to be learned instantly on first glance, or achieving perfection. It is about suggesting incremental improvements to mechanics and UI to make the game more usable/learnable. If it is possible to make it easier to handle certain aspects, why not do so? We certainly don't want things moving in the opposite direction, do we?

You can't get anything into a stockpile you destroy.

You have to destroy and then rebuild them in the same spot is what I meant.

Intuitiveness is overrated, it is enough that things are learnable.

Things which are intuitive are easy to learn though. This is one of the reasons physics games are popular to make, because the mechanics line up nicely with our expectations of how things should behave.

But if a mechanic for replacing an item with a container was introduced, I'd be cool with that. That would address many of the complaints, and would make life a little easier. I don't think anyone in this thread has opposed such a change.

Yes, I think this would help.

No, players shouldn't need to look things up in external resources. Somebody should WTFM so the players could RTFM. But meanwhile, the players still have the apparently old-fashioned option of trying things out. And I can't see how "first you place a container, then you put things in a container" can be so counter-intuitive as some people claim: that's how real world works. I don't think anyone here would try placing a bookshelf over a stack of books and expect the books to end up in it.

Players aren't the ones doing the placing though, the NPCs are. And it is counter-intuitive to expect them to be unable to cope with that simple intuitive logic. Or unintuitive in a game that otherwise does an excellent job of not having you worry about problems at that level. We've already agreed on this point though, so whatever.

And whether that's intuitive or not is immaterial; you only need to learn it, and learn it once. My problem with many of the supposed fixes suggested on this forum is that they don't actually propose a clearly superior system, or at all address the underlying learnability issue: they merely swap one set of expectations for another. This is more a problem of instruction than implementation, IMO. I'd prefer that instruction was from a manual in the game or accompanying the game rather than a wiki or this forum, obviously.

Then please participate in discussion in a constructive manner and perhaps we can come up with a system that does.

So they have hit upon the solution, all without spending hours on wikis and guides. Good for them. Then they come here and make an often ill-considered suggestion to change the interface to something more complicated for no appreciable gain. Surely their suggestions are open to criticism.

Constructive criticism, not telling them the current system is fine and their problem is non-existent. Or that it isn't worth developing the changes to the UI. Or they should read the forums to learn how to play.

It needs to be made more obvious, but that doesn't necessarily mean introducing a new way of doing it. Pointing out that the current way to do it is the way to do it would also work.

That would also be fine, but the destroy->recreate stockpiles mechanism may also just be a work around rather than a proper way of doing it. It seems very heavy handed and generates more jobs than necessary if you only want to move some items.

Your moving goalposts here; "warrant changing the interface", is different than "warrant suggestion". Sure, talk is cheap on the forum: suggest away. But actually implementing an interface change uses resources, specifically, the limited development time of a handful of devs. This forum seems an appropriate place to discuss the relative importance of proposed changes.

Whoops, yes. Rewrote that too many times and messed it up. But really it doesn't feel like suggestions are welcome at all at the moment either. And it is up to the devs to determine priority. None of these suggestions are necessarily for immediate development.

What? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a perfect attitude for a game this early in development

Implementation-wise, yes. Suggestion-wise, no. This is a response to so many "the current system is fine" rebuffs to suggestions. To a certain extent it is better to experiment with big changes early, rather than later when things are more solidified, but this is probably not one of those things. These suggestions aren't necessarily for the immediate future.

True, but an interface change to afford one's preferred style of play doesn't automatically make a game better. And some of the suggestions here end up with every item in every stockpile surrounded by checkboxes and sliders, and I don't think that would contribute to gradual learning. On that front, I think, GC is doing well, with every tier opening new constructions, and every new construction introducing new items, though the tier progression may still be a little fast.

True, so suggest how these ideas can be improved! What I like about the Accept/Hold/Refuse system is it merely adds an extra state to the existing system, minimizing the change to UI and not adding any clutter. And it is also a proven mechanism in Caesar 3. But I guess the check box needs to make obvious what those states are and mean somehow.

[Mike-al]

Sure, people should work out some things by themselves - how to best design a camp, how to avoid destruction by fire, and so forth. But controls and UI should not require external resources to master. If I make a terrible game with an extremely complex and non-intuitive control scheme, should I just blame the players for not spending the time reading guides and forum threads?

That's not what I said. My point was that I get the feeling players aren't trying to achieve their aims in the actual game, but are giving up and complaining. As I said, that may be an unwarranted impression, but it's the one I'm getting.

Perhaps you don't have an issue with how it works, but obviously it is an issue for the wider community and accessibility means catering for a wider audience.

"The wider community" means what, three posters? I don't want to belittle them, but are you really that convinced that they're "the wider community" and not, in fact, a noisy minority?

Players shouldn't need to look up how to add sacks to an existing seed stockpile, or how to move wood from one stockpile to another.

No, they shouldn't.

You have to if they're already filled with items.

Now you're changing your argument again.

Basically new players will inevitably hit a situation where they've made a mistake, and want to move stuff, look for the UI to do it, fail to find it and delete their stockpiles in an effort to force things.

In other words, accomplish their goal, but in a way that you and a couple of other people consider unintuitive.

Then come here and make a suggestion to improve the UI only to get blasted by you. Nice.

I take serious issue with that. When have I "blasted" someone for making a suggestion? Are there some civility rules on this forum that say no-one in the Suggestions forum is allowed to say "I disagree with your idea" or "I don't understand what your problem is", the latter meaning literally what it says?

And since when did problems have to be of a sufficient size to warrant a suggestion?

Taking that to mean "interface change", since always.

You're the one who said we should prefill our stockpiles with containers before using them.

No, I explained how to get a "perfectly neat" seed stockpile.

But obviously it isn't possible for the initial seed stockpile. It also isn't likely to happen that way for first time players as they don't have sufficient knowledge to plan ahead.

Equally obviously, I wasn't talking about a first-time player making their first ever seed stockpile.

I'm not saying this is analogous, but still.

Having a cleaner interface to do the same thing is not the same as a win button.

...

The core of most of these suggestions is a better interface to do the same thing - get items moved from one stockpile to another, or getting items placed in containers in another or the same stockpile. At the moment this can all be done via destroying and recreated stockpiles. Having some nicer UI options still requires goblins to move things and thus has a cost, so what's the problem?

In my opinion, it adds complexity to the system without achieving commensurate gains in usability.

That is a judgement the player must make, and the game would be better for the ability for players to have that choice.

Not necessarily, if implementing that choice actually makes the whole UI more confusing at the same time.

I guess accepting is the same as a tick at the moment (new goods of that type can be stored, stored items can be used), holding is the same as not ticked now (no new goods of that type can be stored, stored items can be used), with rejected meaning that items of that type can be used but are also actively moved to other stockpiles if possible. Similar to Caesar 3, although that also had "Stockpiling" where items weren't used.

In my opinion, this would make the whole stockpile menu much more confusing, and that would offset the gains.

I'm not comfortable with the attitude of responding to suggestions with "you're wrong", "that's crazy" or otherwise in a non-constructive way.

So the only constructive speech is the kind that agrees with other people? I'm not allowed to ask people to clarify their ideas or disagree with them?

Or the "ain't broke, don't fix" approach to a game still in alpha/beta/whatever.

I totally disagree with this. This project still needs to move on quite a ways and implement a lot to get to where it's supposed to be.

Some suggestions will be bad, but even then there is something to be learnt from what the user is having trouble with.

Of course there is. That's what I was trying to do when I was trying to get people to explain what their problem with, say, containers was.

Maybe not, but there's nothing wrong with wanting the interface to be better, is there? Especially where the interface doesn't impact on the gameplay mechanics themselves. Part of a good game is opening up features gradually so a player can learn them over time too.

Of course not. I've said a million times here that the UI could be much better in many areas.