RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently

RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Tech Support

Message

ZiggyMaca -> RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently (7/3/2020 4:34:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zgrssd quote: ORIGINAL: Malevolence If it is intended that putting xx% block allows the movement of 100%, then I question the intent. Some percentage of new players are going to keep bringing this up a bug, because the behavior is inconsistent. quote: If it is intended that putting xx% block allows the movement of 100%, then I question the intent. Some percentage of new players are going to keep bringing this up a bug, because the behavior is inconsistent. It is intended that a XX% block without another direction for Logistics to flow towards, will let 100% through. That is also a very sensible thing. Putting in any "can not set traffic sign" rules and the special handlign for cases where roads are added and removed would be a UI pain. One rule when Logistics flow is calculated? Way better. Not allowing traffic signs anywhere, would remove the ability to examine the flow at a particular point, and you need the popup for pull configuring.

zgrssd -> RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently (7/3/2020 5:00:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ZiggyMaca quote: ORIGINAL: zgrssd quote: ORIGINAL: Malevolence If it is intended that putting xx% block allows the movement of 100%, then I question the intent. Some percentage of new players are going to keep bringing this up a bug, because the behavior is inconsistent. quote: If it is intended that putting xx% block allows the movement of 100%, then I question the intent. Some percentage of new players are going to keep bringing this up a bug, because the behavior is inconsistent. It is intended that a XX% block without another direction for Logistics to flow towards, will let 100% through. That is also a very sensible thing. Putting in any "can not set traffic sign" rules and the special handlign for cases where roads are added and removed would be a UI pain. One rule when Logistics flow is calculated? Way better. Not allowing traffic signs anywhere, would remove the ability to examine the flow at a particular point, and you need the popup for pull configuring. You can disable the "select blockage" buttons, without disabling the full UI. Like you can nowadays always progress to the 2nd "Raise Formation" Window. But as I said: It would be a hassle, with lots of edge cases and very little (if any) gain. Beter to jsut keep one check during logistics phase and be done with it.

GodwinW -> RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently (7/3/2020 5:37:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malevolence If it is intended that putting xx% block allows the movement of 100%, then I question the intent. Some percentage of new players are going to keep bringing this up a bug, because the behavior is inconsistent. We already went over it, didn't we? You even agreed that it was useful in case someone deletes one branch of a fork and forget the traffic sign on the remaining branch. Anyway, now knowing the system I can tell you why it isn't inconsistent, just unintuitive without knowing the math. It's a 'weighted system'. Basically how it works is as follows: You have two branches. One branch has a 20% traffic sign. This means there's a branch with 80% (= 100% - 20%) weight and one with 100% weight. It's calculated according to this formula (let's say the LIS arriving in the hex with the sign is 400): 400 * 80 / (80+100) goes through the traffic sign branch (80 + 100 is the total of branch weights together), and 400 * 100 / (80+100) goes through the other branch. So, with 1 branch and a 20% sign: 400 * 80 / (80+0) = 400 continues through. And with 100% sign (weight is 100% - 100% = 0): 400 * 0 = 0, everything gets blocked.

Gozzon -> RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently (7/3/2020 6:47:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malevolence If it is intended that putting xx% block allows the movement of 100%, then I question the intent. Some percentage of new players are going to keep bringing this up a bug, because the behavior is inconsistent. There's no inconsistency it works exactly the same no matter the case. Only issue here is that people think that system is percentile base while it is weight base. What it does every time is this: 1. Check if direction is allowed (Previously visited roads aren't allowed) 2. Get weight for direction (Weight is inverse of block) 3. Calculate weight based supply count 4. Send supplies according to 3. calculation And the calculation for 3. part is: Logistic Points / Sum of all allowed direction weights * direction weight Because of this if there ever is even one direction supplies can flow and they will flow there. All blocks also always block all supplies because weight is 0 for these the match checks out for these too. I do not see any reason to change it since changing it would change the "I added a road block but it is letting supplies through. How do I prevent supplies through to get more supplies to my army?" into "I added a road block but I'm still not getting more supplies. How do I get more supplies to my army?" There's no difference that the true issue is still unanswered and new player confused and I would argue that the latter is even more harder to spot since it would make the supplies disappear making new players think that they did the right thing. What I've understood is that you would like the game to do a different calculation on supply flow if there's just one direction and it's blocked. Or would it need to also change the flow mechanism in case people set all roads into road block as that's also a situation that causes some confusion among the new players. I disagree completely on creating a special case for this, to remove actual usage of 95% block allowing 100% pass and to punish "wrong" supply setups. Instead more education on the actual supply flow should be the answer. It's a quite simple system no reason to make it even harder

Malevolence -> RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently (7/4/2020 4:38:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zgrssd Putting in any "can not set traffic sign" rules and the special handlign for cases where roads are added and removed would be a UI pain. One rule when Logistics flow is calculated? Way better. What? You're all over the place there. You mean it's hard to disable and grey-out a control the user cannot not select? That's easy. Done once, works everywhere. Who is more likely to know the exception condition, the system or the user? Hint: the system. It already knows the condition, because it's implementing the exception under the conditions you defined. [:D] Rationalize it any way you please. User clicks on the the control to block 60% of the flow in the direction indicated. Interface signals a 60% block. System then purposefully allows 100% of the flow. I agreed there could be be any number of wishes for that behavior and supported opinions why the user wouldn't want to block some portion of the flow in that case. It doesn't change the core issue. The issue is the interface is giving a false signal to user. The behavior of the control is inconsistent. Some players know the convention and the exception rule. They understand the exception. Agreed. It's a bad design. Fails design 101 bad.

zgrssd -> RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently (7/4/2020 10:49:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Malevolence quote: ORIGINAL: zgrssd Putting in any "can not set traffic sign" rules and the special handlign for cases where roads are added and removed would be a UI pain. One rule when Logistics flow is calculated? Way better. What? You're all over the place there. You mean it's hard to disable and grey-out a control the user cannot not select? That's easy. Done once, works everywhere. Nice, what about the other 90% of the work? You know, the hard part? Like removing Traffic signs if a crossign is removed? Or what if you wanted to put it there in anticipation of a crossing appearing there? And the whole question is irrelevant now, because we got the Pull System doing the job of traffic signs anyway!

ramnblam -> RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently (7/4/2020 11:37:49 AM)
So I probably played 100hrs, before realizing that I didn't understand really understand the logistics system as you can see from my OP. But glad to say 150 turns into my new epic game speed match with the new logistics system and I feel it's much more intuitive and enjoyable.

Malevolence -> RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently (7/4/2020 6:38:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zgrssd Nice, what about the other 90% of the work? You know, the hard part? Like removing Traffic signs if a crossign is removed? Or what if you wanted to put it there in anticipation of a crossing appearing there? Improve your technique. https://martinfowler.com/apsupp/spec.pdf These are well understood problems with well understood solutions. I believe the game already uses a ruleset system ... if Barbarossa and the previous games' mod wiki is an accurate indicator. quote: ORIGINAL: zgrssd And the whole question is irrelevant now, because we got the Pull System doing the job of traffic signs anyway! Again, the issue is with the interface controls. The pull system did not fix the interface issue. ... and even if, the tools reportedly exist as equals. [image]https://kungfukingdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Drunken-Master-Strikes-Back-1978-Kung-Fu-Kingdom-770x472.jpg[/image]

zgrssd -> RE: [1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently (7/4/2020 7:17:34 PM)
Let me repeat: - Just placing that traffic sign on a road without a branch was a stupid idea - There was no way on a Cerberus Class planet that was going to help - meanwhile the chance of it hurting, was the chance of cold on a Boreas Class Planet - the Logistics System is smart enough to ignore it. I do not know where this is a problem. You can maybe argue that the ability to place it at all was the bug. But for me even that much sounds like a stretch. There are so many cases where that putting that sign could have been a leftover or future proofing, that allowing it and ignoring it just seems so much better.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.733887