Older topic about Local Solar System Management

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderator: Oberlus

Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
truepurple
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am

Older topic about Local Solar System Management

#1 Post by truepurple »

See these threads for more refined versions of the stuff I wrote here
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=12111
viewtopic.php?f=28&t=12110

As I have played many 4X, might as well copy what I've seen work, with a few twists specific to FO.

System production list:
. . . . When you select a system, it gives you a list of things currently in production in that system. This would be redundant with the overall production list, as well as tied together. Removing an item from one list removes it from the other. The purpose? To keep track of what you're already producing.
. . . . For example, I had a planet I was terraforming that was one step removed from the best type, I accidentally set production of terraforming twice on it. (I also couldn't figure out why it wouldn't allow for production of the terraforming because of the silly turn delay thing, the planet didn't look terraformed)First, the game shouldn't allow that. But also it's a easy mistake to make and it doesn't only apply to that. I also got some outpost bases that I got no use for that just site there because I didn't know how many I had already set to produce and extra radar ships etc. I don't need for the same reason.
. . . . Because I got a shitload of items on my production list since the game only allows so much production on items per turn and I'm over 500 production a turn, I got a long list. It can be hard to spot if something is redundant or excessive. But if the systems themselves had their specific list, it would be much much easier to check if I was already producing something there I needed.
. . . . Those tiny icons below planets with the bars that fill up are not the same. Also does not work with ship production.
Last edited by truepurple on Tue Jul 20, 2021 12:55 am, edited 12 times in total.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Management controls

#2 Post by Ophiuchus »

truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 am As I have played many 4X, might as well copy what I've seen work, with a few twists specific to FO.

System production list:
. . . . When you select a system, it gives you a list of things currently in production in that system. This would be redundant with the overall production list, as well as tied together. Removing an item from one list removes it from the other. The purpose? To keep track of what you're already producing.
Production queue is global (aka imperial) for good reasons. Also note system location is secondary to the supply group. The production queue has to be imperial because of imperial stockpile and because of supply groups can change every turn, so you need an imperial ordering on the production items.

Also note that if you select a planet, the production items of that planet are highlighted in the queue.

Request for temporary(?) UI filters in the production queue (imperial/supply group/system) sounds reasonable. Open up a topic and provide a UI mockup.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amI had a planet I was terraforming that was one step removed from the best type, I accidentally set production of terraforming twice on it.
IMHO should not be problem - wont waste any production. Those should not be producible in parallel and also not producible if it is already the best type.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amI also got some outpost bases that I got no use for that just site there because I didn't know how many I had already set to produce and extra radar ships etc. I don't need for the same reason.
Just stop doing that.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amNext/previous system/fleet controls as well as means to modulate them.
mock up a UI suggestion. Related there are already hotkeys for the next/previous fleet.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amWays of modulating it.
A way to take a system or fleet out of rotation and put it back in rotation at will.
Too complicated for users. Wont happen.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amWays of modulating it.
A main fleet option where any ships in the same system as the "main fleet" get automaticaly added in if set to the same reaction.
Something like "Merge fleets with same aggressiveness"(?)
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 am Pressing C centering screen on whatevers selected (or whatever key)
I would guess that already exists
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Management controls

#3 Post by LienRag »

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:18 am Something like "Merge fleets with same aggressiveness"(?)
A hotkey to do that automatically when on a system would be nice indeed.
Two hotkeys actually, one for "fleets with same aggressiveness" and one for "all fleets".
I don't know if there's already a way to "remove all unarmed ships" from a fleet ?

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:18 am
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amI also got some outpost bases that I got no use for that just site there because I didn't know how many I had already set to produce and extra radar ships etc. I don't need for the same reason.
Just stop doing that.
You never built an Outpost Base by mistake ?
Considering their cost, it's quite infuriating when it happens.

I wouldn't know how to prevent that, though. Maybe make local bases in a different UI color than actual ships ?
It wouldn't prevent building more bases than needed - could the line in the queue change color if you build/queue more bases than there are unowned planets in the system ?

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Management controls

#4 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:49 am
Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:18 am
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amI also got some outpost bases that I got no use for that just site there because I didn't know how many I had already set to produce and extra radar ships etc. I don't need for the same reason.
Just stop doing that.
You never built an Outpost Base by mistake ?
Considering their cost, it's quite infuriating when it happens.

I wouldn't know how to prevent that, though. Maybe make local bases in a different UI color than actual ships ?
It wouldn't prevent building more bases than needed - could the line in the queue change color if you build/queue more bases than there are unowned planets in the system ?
If the aim is to not waste any PP on useless outpost bases regardless of attention failures or ignorance, maybe you could try doing something in FOCS, to not allow equeueing more outpost bases than unowned unpopulated planets minus already enqueued outpost bases. That would be better than improving UI, since UI indications can always be missed.

Edit: I myself would not devote any time to it because my TODO list is already full of items that I'm failing to attend.
PS: infuriating? I find much more infuriating the answers of obnoxious people than a silly mistake while playing a game, and I keep being told to just ignore those, so I could recommend the same to you: just ignore your mistakes.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Management controls

#5 Post by Ophiuchus »

LienRag wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:49 am You never built an Outpost Base by mistake ?
Considering their cost, it's quite infuriating when it happens.
Oh I do. But not at a time when I find the cost infuriating.

In the long run we should get rid of outpost bases, directly colonising/outposting/building on an unowned planet.
Meanwhile if somebody picks up Oberlus suggestion I would be happy.

truepurple complained about other kind of ships - I do not see a fix for this on a OSI layer below 8.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
LienRag
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2148
Joined: Fri May 17, 2019 5:03 pm

Re: Management controls

#6 Post by LienRag »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:05 pm If the aim is to not waste any PP on useless outpost bases regardless of attention failures or ignorance, maybe you could try doing something in FOCS, to not allow equeueing more outpost bases than unowned unpopulated planets minus already enqueued outpost bases. That would be better than improving UI, since UI indications can always be missed.
Thing is, there are (rare) occasions when you want to enqueue more outpost bases, like when using stargates, when anticipating losses,...

The problem is less "regardless of attention failures" that not encouraging them with confusing UI.

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:18 pm truepurple complained about other kind of ships - I do not see a fix for this on a OSI layer below 8.
Indeed. And a very nice way to say it...

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Management controls

#7 Post by Oberlus »

LienRag wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:24 pm Thing is, there are (rare) occasions when you want to enqueue more outpost bases, like when using stargates, when anticipating losses,...
If you can build a stargate in a system you can build an outpost base in the same system, no need to built it somewhere else then send it via a stargate. Who's your dealer?
LienRag wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:24 pm The problem is less "regardless of attention failures" that not encouraging them with confusing UI.
What is confusing here?

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Management controls

#8 Post by Ophiuchus »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 3:04 pm
LienRag wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:24 pm Thing is, there are (rare) occasions when you want to enqueue more outpost bases, like when using stargates, when anticipating losses,...
If you can build a stargate in a system you can build an outpost base in the same system, no need to built it somewhere else then send it via a stargate.
E.g. you could invade the stargate system (or build using the stockpile). If it is supply-disconnected you can move in your outposts/colonies bases next turn.
Anyway that is not an intended feature.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

truepurple
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am

Re: Management controls

#9 Post by truepurple »

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:18 am
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 am As I have played many 4X, might as well copy what I've seen work, with a few twists specific to FO.

System production list:
. . . . When you select a system, it gives you a list of things currently in production in that system. This would be redundant with the overall production list, as well as tied together. Removing an item from one list removes it from the other. The purpose? To keep track of what you're already producing.
Production queue is global (aka imperial) for good reasons. Also note system location is secondary to the supply group. The production queue has to be imperial because of imperial stockpile and because of supply groups can change every turn, so you need an imperial ordering on the production items.
You would have both global and local production lists, the same items even as I said.

So if you set a colony module production on a planet, you would see that module both in "global" (which I never suggested to get ride of!) production list, and system production list simultanously. If you remove or move module from global production list, you also remove it from system production list and visa vera. The two lists would be echos of each other except system production would only show production of that system. Again, the purpose of this would to make keeping track of what you are producing on a system bases notably easier. It'd be one more tool for players to understand and manage their production, giving them the best of both worlds.
Also note that if you select a planet, the production items of that planet are highlighted in the queue.
Names are turned blue, not the same thing though. These lists can be long.
Request for temporary(?) UI filters in the production queue (imperial/supply group/system) sounds reasonable. Open up a topic and provide a UI mockup.
Not sure what you mean by a mockup. Setting filters for each system would be a pain. If you mean when you select the system, the global list autofilters for that sytem, that would be a less optimal solution then the one I mentioned.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amI had a planet I was terraforming that was one step removed from the best type, I accidentally set production of terraforming twice on it.
IMHO should not be problem - wont waste any production.
Are you saying half produced things that never actually get produced doesn't waste production? Fully produced stuff certainly wastes production.
Ophiuchus wrote:
cumbersome less optiminal UI causes production errors sometimes
Just stop doing that.
Glad to hear you're so perfect, but for us mere mortals, maybe you can refrain from offering such glib "solutions"
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amWays of modulating it.
A way to take a system or fleet out of rotation and put it back in rotation at will.
Too complicated for users. Wont happen.
A box to click and a hot key to toggle the box so we don't have to click it. That is way far from "too complicated" for anyone. No more complicated then setting fleet aggression.

We go from so great we never make a mistake to not being able to manage a toggle? Geez, be consistent.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amWays of modulating it.
A main fleet option where any ships in the same system as the "main fleet" get automaticaly added in if set to the same reaction.
Something like "Merge fleets with same aggressiveness"(?)
No, because it would only apply to the fleet in question, not any fleet with the same aggression. Basically turning select fleet into a same aggression pickup magnet automatically merging same aggression fleets.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 am Pressing C centering screen on whatevers selected (or whatever key)
I would guess that already exists
I have carefully gone over the keyboard shortcut options listed in game, that does not exist in 4.10

truepurple
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am

Re: Management controls

#10 Post by truepurple »

Ophiuchus wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:18 am
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amWays of modulating it.
A way to take a system or fleet out of rotation and put it back in rotation at will.
Too complicated for users. Wont happen.
In essence I am talking about something like the ability to fortify units in Civ or obsolete builds and structures in FO.

Are you saying the features players everywhere regularly use are too complicated for them? *looks at Ophiuchus incredulously*

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Management controls

#11 Post by Oberlus »

What is it to put in or out of rotation in this context?
Edit: Oh, I get it, that thing of games like Civ to iterate over units without active orders. I prefer current system (I keep track of idle units with sitreps about finished orders, I don't take units out of "rotation" because units I want to stay still just stay still, I can't forget about units that I put out of rotation because there is no such thing, I find this system less time-consuming).

In civilization and other games, to fortify a unit is to build trenchs and the such, that makes no sense in the space.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Management controls

#12 Post by Ophiuchus »

truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:00 pmYou would have both global and local production lists, the same items even as I said.
I can see we are on the same page here, which is good. As a programmer the implementation would not be different lists but one and there would be just a local view onto that list.

I can see that having such views could be beneficial at times. There are some minor issues: if you add an item to a non-global list, you still need a global ordering/position in the global list. You could "glue" it to the previous item i guess. Also you do not see the effect it has on the larger lists - all the items behind might not be sufficiently funded any more.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:00 pm
Open up a topic and provide a UI mockup.
Not sure what you mean by a mockup.
A screenshot graphic where you photoshop into the controls you envision.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 8:00 pm Setting filters for each system would be a pain. If you mean when you select the system, the global list autofilters for that sytem,
yes, a button (or multiple ones) which switches between different list views. global/supply-group/system. i did not understand your more optimal solution -> please provide mockups
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 am Are you saying half produced things that never actually get produced doesn't waste production?
No I am not saying that. I was under the impression that you can enqueue multiple terraform buildings on the same planet, but it is only build if there are no other terrform buildings above in the production queue. This might have changed.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 am Glad to hear you're so perfect, but for us mere mortals, maybe you can refrain from offering such glib "solutions"
Would you suggest to change the rules of the chess game so people cant do stupid mistakes? Shit happens. Your enemies also make mistakes. Learn, pay attention, do less shit.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 amThat is way far from "too complicated" for anyone.
Too complicated for me/I dont see the benefit. I wouldnt implement that.
truepurple wrote: Wed Jul 14, 2021 1:02 am Pressing C centering screen on whatevers selected (or whatever key)
... I have carefully gone over the keyboard shortcut options listed in game, that does not exist in 4.10
ok, open a feature request on github for it.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

truepurple
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am

Re: Management controls

#13 Post by truepurple »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:35 am In civilization and other games, to fortify a unit is to build trenchs and the such, that makes no sense in the space.
Anyway the point isn't the idea of fortification, the idea is that units "fortified" are skipped in unit rotation. It's about skipping planets or systems and fleets in "next" rotation that is the key point here, not what we call it! Obviously we wouldn't label it as "fortification" and there'd be no defensive bonuses, like FFS.... I was responding to what Ophiuchus said with "too complicated for players", and I gave an example in another game of exactly that which no one struggles to understand.

People prove they aren't really reading and taking the time to comprehend what I am saying when they say shit like this. Well Oberlus has proven that time and again, they might echo my talking points to say "hey look I really read it" (did that once) but then prove they really didn't understand anything with everything else they say.

truepurple
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:09 am

Re: Management controls

#14 Post by truepurple »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:35 am that thing of games like Civ to iterate over units without active orders. I prefer current system (I keep track of idle units with sitreps about finished orders, I don't take units out of "rotation" because units I want to stay still just stay still, I can't forget about units that I put out of rotation because there is no such thing, I find this system less time-consuming).
It's just like how you obsolete things, then you can unobsolete things if you need them again. The idea is to manage volume. It would apply to systems too.

If you got a spy ship sitting in space you don't want moved, or a extra scout you don't know what to do with but don't want to destroy, or a satcom or extra outpost base you accidentally made just sitting immovable over a planet. You'll want to be able to take them out of rotation.

Of course you can add them back into rotation. Civ also has timed removal of rotation too, like after X number of turns, it goes back into rotation. Whether a unit or system is in or out of rotation can be managed with a check box, which is also how you can tell if it is or isn't out of rotation.

Systems/planets especially could benefit from being out of rotation. Since production can go anywhere in your connected nation, that back planet only contributing science and completely gia terraformed, you don't need to see over and over in rotation, mostly just the planet with good pilot species making your ships, planet with good offensive troop species making your troop ships, etc, a select few systems to rotate through, the rest is just extra pointless button pressing and time wasted as you cycle through countless planets you have no interest in doing anything with for the foreseeable future, AKA unnecessary micromanaging.

We could even have keys for rotating through things taken out of rotation, like how we have special obsolete tabs for seeing the stuff we obsoleted in ship design, for when we do need to find that spy ship again or unlocked a new tech to add to a world we didn't have anything to build there before.

Also Oberlus, taking a fleet or planet out of rotation would of course be optional. But I think you too would be using it at lease some once you realize it's value in effort and time saving.
Ophiuchus wrote: Thu Jul 15, 2021 7:49 am Too complicated for me/I dont see the benefit. I wouldnt implement that.
I described how super simple this is, how it already exists in FO with ship design under obsolescence and in other games where no one is confused by it because it's not hard to understand! As a programmer, there is no way it's too complicated for you if I and most everyone else can comprehend it!

As far as the benefits, I've described them earlier, I described them here in this post in more detail. Please reach deeper and not just some glib generic statement that contradicts everything already posted as far as proof of how simple and useful the idea is!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Management controls

#15 Post by Oberlus »

I have played same 4x games than you. I like FO system more. I think you too will be liking it more once you learn how to use it and realize it's value in effort and time saving.

I just don't use rotation, never iterate over anything. Rotation is micromanagement. Specially with systems and planets it's absolutely unnecesary. Sitreps do all the job nicely. If you lost track planets to colonize, open objects window and use its handy filters, set the values to show on the columns, order by the value you need, and voilà.
Most of the time I have nothing to change on most systems. When I get a new colony in a new system I know from the sitrep. Clicking on the system name in the sitrep I see the planets in there and I decide right then what shipyards or bases to build, enqueue them and forget about that system until I get another sitrep for it.
If I get a new species that could settle on previously ignored planets: objects window, order by planet size then planet environment, click on the ones I want and see what to do.

I might unobsolete something maybe once in ten games.

I sometimes forget to move an exploring scout but only because I didn't pay attention to the sitrep when it got to current position and action is somewhere else. Happens so unfrequently that I don't care.

So, if there is no need for rotation, it is pointless to implement a system to put stuff out of rotation. Ophiuchus is so right.

BTW, if you ever build a redundant base, scrap it. It costs you (makes other ships more expensive to build).

And try to stop telling devs what they should do, please, specially if you keep asking things from other games really loaded of micromanagement that FO have done in a better way.

Post Reply