immortius wrote:Walker wrote:This is why I don't like the use of the word 'intuitive'. It often just means 'what I expect'.
I have to agree with Burningpet in that it isn't how I would have expected it to work
To me the stockpile UI represents a statement of your intent in what should be stored in that stockpile, and when you mark an item not to be stored in a stockpile, you don't expect your intent to be ignored and for it to continue to be stored.
Whereas, I expected the 'accept' to refer to future activities, and I still think that is a natural expectation. A stockpile is, in my mind, for storing things. It seems very desirable to be able to say: "Okay, we have enough of that item, take the rest someplace else" rather than being forced to choose between them either being constantly carted in, or constantly carted out.
Individual expectations are clearly not a good basis for choosing between the two, though, as they seem split. I would argue, however, that the current system with accept/hold is superior to accept/remove, as it supports use cases accept/remove doesn't, while accept/remove doesn't add any functionality that can't already be accomplished with the current system.
I do agree that any solution might as well go the full way towards having logistical chains between stockpiles (moving food out to outposts, bring resources towards where they are consumed) if that can at all be managed cleanly (what is that, four states? Accept, Accept and Export, Hold and Remove?).
Of course, a system that supports all three plus redistribution would be superior to both, provided it wasn't too clunky or confusing.