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.
Walker wrote: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.