Usability improvements...
Gustav Bertram
This is a great game. I've already finished the Very Easy and Easy
levels. Going to try for Normal next.
There are a couple of simple hacks that I found greatly improved the
UI.
1. Don't confirm new base names.
I like building loads of bases. New base names are usually unique, so
why ask for confirmation? I hacked to code to automatically accept the
base name and it's speeded up my building a LOT. The caveat to this is
that more unique base names should be supplied. I built 70 moonbases,
and I think the last 10 all had the same name.
2. Single command to kill bases.
I added a "kill" button to the bases list view. It immediately kills
that base, without confirmation. Makes it a lot faster to destroy
redundant bases when I upgrade to larger bases.
3. Sort CPUs according to price.
When building 70 moonbases, it really gets tiring to select the second-
to-bottom CPU on the list: the MK3. This list should be sorted
according to CPU power.
These are on my wishlist for the UI, though I haven't coded or play
tested them yet:
1. Standard base designs.
Once again, when building 70 moonbases, the number of clicks needed to
upgrade facilities becomes unbearable. I've got enough cash, so why
not have a base with items already installed? A moonbase with Mk3,
Fusion Reactor, Quantum Entanglement Module, and Heatsink standard.
Maybe when selecting a new base, pre-select techs for that base.
Remember pre-selects for that base type.
2. Commission multiple bases.
I'd like a way to say: Build ten of this type base. That way I can
select "Standard Base" x 10. Possibly when you just selected a new
base type to build, add an edit box saying "Number to build: [-][001]
[+] ---- PRICE: [15K]"
3. Display detection percentages.
A lot of the tech is designed to allow bases to be less detectable by
various groups. It would be nice to know what exactly those
percentages are, and what a specific base's detection rate is. Perhaps
a "Statistics and Surveying" tech will make these visible.
4. Single Command to destroy multiple bases.
I'd be nice if you could hold in shift, and select multiple bases to
upgrade or kill.
5. Status display.
When new network, reactor or security devices are completed, they
interrupt the flow of the game. They don't provide more CPU to
allocate, so really they don't need to interrupt. Display these on a
status display at bottom of screen.
Kind Regards,
Gustav
(gustavbertram.com)
Gustav Bertram
evilm...@emhsoft.com
> Hi,
>
> This is a great game. I've already finished the Very Easy and Easy
> levels. Going to try for Normal next.
>
> There are a couple of simple hacks that I found greatly improved the
> UI.
>
> 1. Don't confirm new base names.
>
> I like building loads of bases. New base names are usually unique, so
> why ask for confirmation? I hacked to code to automatically accept the
> base name and it's speeded up my building a LOT. The caveat to this is
> that more unique base names should be supplied. I built 70 moonbases,
> and I think the last 10 all had the same name.
We have a rename command in-base, right? If so, I like this suggestion. If
not, we need to add it first. Any disagreement on this?
> 2. Single command to kill bases.
>
> I added a "kill" button to the bases list view. It immediately kills
> that base, without confirmation. Makes it a lot faster to destroy
> redundant bases when I upgrade to larger bases.
Already done.
> 3. Sort CPUs according to price.
>
> When building 70 moonbases, it really gets tiring to select the second-
> to-bottom CPU on the list: the MK3. This list should be sorted
> according to CPU power.
I think we just changed the list to sorting by size. Sorting by price is a
bit more annoying, and has the side effect of potentially moving bases
around in the list unpredictably. Thoughts?
> These are on my wishlist for the UI, though I haven't coded or play
> tested them yet:
>
> 1. Standard base designs.
>
> Once again, when building 70 moonbases, the number of clicks needed to
> upgrade facilities becomes unbearable. I've got enough cash, so why
> not have a base with items already installed? A moonbase with Mk3,
> Fusion Reactor, Quantum Entanglement Module, and Heatsink standard.
>
> Maybe when selecting a new base, pre-select techs for that base.
> Remember pre-selects for that base type.
I'd be agreeable to a save config button in the base screen, creating a
new base type in the new base window.
Alternate: have a "build this base up using highest-quality components
available" button. Then you don't need to change your profile every time
you gain a new tech.
Alternate: have a "build new base identical to this one" button in the
base screen.
Thoughts?
> 2. Commission multiple bases.
>
> I'd like a way to say: Build ten of this type base. That way I can
> select "Standard Base" x 10. Possibly when you just selected a new
> base type to build, add an edit box saying "Number to build: [-][001]
> [+] ---- PRICE: [15K]"
For most of the game, you're only really dealing with 2-5 computers at a
time, though. I'm not quite sure how useful this will be.
> 3. Display detection percentages.
>
> A lot of the tech is designed to allow bases to be less detectable by
> various groups. It would be nice to know what exactly those
> percentages are, and what a specific base's detection rate is. Perhaps
> a "Statistics and Surveying" tech will make these visible.
I think we've already added the real discovery rates to the new base screen.
> 4. Single Command to destroy multiple bases.
>
> I'd be nice if you could hold in shift, and select multiple bases to
> upgrade or kill.
Somewhat difficult to do. I'd just go with the kill button on the baselist
for now. That should speed things up.
> 5. Status display.
>
> When new network, reactor or security devices are completed, they
> interrupt the flow of the game. They don't provide more CPU to
> allocate, so really they don't need to interrupt. Display these on a
> status display at bottom of screen.
We're tossing around a few ideas on this.
> Kind Regards,
> Gustav
> (gustavbertram.com)
>
>
Phil Bordelon
>> When building 70 moonbases, it really gets tiring to select the second-
>> to-bottom CPU on the list: the MK3. This list should be sorted
>> according to CPU power.
>
> I think we just changed the list to sorting by size. Sorting by price is a
> bit more annoying, and has the side effect of potentially moving bases
> around in the list unpredictably. Thoughts?
I don't think this is referring to bases; it's referring to when you
pick which CPUs to build in a particular base. Correct me if I'm wrong
(or let me know if I'm right), Gustav.
Phil
evilm...@emhsoft.com
...I think you're right.
With this in mind, I agree. The item lists *should* be sorted by quality.
One-line fix, want it done by the next release.
Phil Bordelon
> ...I think you're right.
>
> With this in mind, I agree. The item lists *should* be sorted by quality.
> One-line fix, want it done by the next release.
"want it done by the next release?" :p
That said, looking at the code, I don't think it's a one-liner; they're
not sorted at all in the current implementation, just pulled in in the
same order that they're defined in g.items. They either need to be
sorted /in/ g.items, or sorted in the list; either solution requires a
bit of juggling of the data. Nothing difficult, but I want to make sure
that I'm seeing what you're seeing.
Phil
evilm...@emhsoft.com
It's pulled directly from g.items? I thought all the listboxes were sortable?
Anyway, even if it's not a one-line fix, it seems simple enough.
Phil Bordelon
> It's pulled directly from g.items? I thought all the listboxes were sortable?
Yes, it's pulled directly from g.items.
> Anyway, even if it's not a one-line fix, it seems simple enough.
It took some finagling; doing The Right Thing (making item objects sortable
required getting rid of lots and lots of comparisons to zero for non-numeric
objects, which was a bit of a pain), but this was implemented in r404 and
r405. Thanks for the suggestion, Gustav. It had been nagging me for a
while as well.
(As an added bonus, /all/ object build lists are now sorted from
highest price to lowest price.)
Phil
Nate...@gmail.com
On Aug 28, 3:47 pm, evilmrhe...@emhsoft.com wrote:
> > 2. Commission multiple bases.
>
> > I'd like a way to say: Build ten of this type base. That way I can
> > select "Standard Base" x 10. Possibly when you just selected a new
> > base type to build, add an edit box saying "Number to build: [-][001]
> > [+] ---- PRICE: [15K]"
>
> For most of the game, you're only really dealing with 2-5 computers at a
> time, though. I'm not quite sure how useful this will be.
It's really annoying to have to click so many times. Can someone
please find a way to build multiple bases?
-Nate
Phil Bordelon
> It's really annoying to have to click so many times. Can someone
> please find a way to build multiple bases?
We can always find a /way/ to build multiple bases, but at the moment
what little developmental energy we have is devoted to upgrading the
UI to something a little more friendly in terms of maintenance.
We always accept patches, though :)
That said, I don't use the mouse for things like base-building; it's
much faster with the keyboard. And, as EMH said, if you have 50 bases
you're definitely taking a different tactic than the common path in the
game. I usually end the game with two bases on the planet and one at
the various other locations.
P
evilm...@emhsoft.com
Specifically, my perspective is that we're better off redoing the early
game until you don't need 50 bases.
Nate...@gmail.com
presses as bases one wants to build.
N
On Oct 23, 11:52 am, evilmrhe...@emhsoft.com wrote:
Nate...@gmail.com
On Oct 23, 11:52 am, evilmrhe...@emhsoft.com wrote:
>
>
> Specifically, my perspective is that we're better off redoing the early
> game until you don't need 50 bases.
That's a very nice goal, but far more work than making an UI addition
to make something happen foo number of times. I suggest that the
former be tried first.
N