A9 - Logistics, Virtual Toolbar, Modular Containers

Discussion in 'FAQ & Feedback' started by Hummel-o-War, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. The Undead Watcher

    The Undead Watcher Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2018
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    26
    Works for me, if it in the end means that my builds are a little bit more than just Hulls(flying or stationary) with Constructors and Cargo Containers in them.
     
    #161
    Taniyama likes this.
  2. The Undead Watcher

    The Undead Watcher Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2018
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    26
    Also another Suggestions for the Connected Toolbar while inside the Logistics Window, Shiftclicking an Item/Object while you're connected moves it directly into the connected Toolbar. Currently only moves it over to your Inventory.

    Thanks in advance!

    Could we also see, where we're connected to, outside of the Logistics Window(so the info for that is besides your connected Toolbar is alway's visible)?
    That would help a lot.

    Wishing you all a merry Christmas!

    EDIT: Another thing i came up with: Does the Logistic Window know, wich Container is connected to what Constructor/Fridge? If yes, could we get a button that would open the Interface of the associated Machine, perhaps above the arrows?
     
    #162
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2018
    Spirit_OK and IronCartographer like this.
  3. Taniyama

    Taniyama Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2017
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    489
    Quite honestly I'm still waiting for wheeled, tracked vehicles, perhaps even boats and subs for oceanic planets.

    Yes that ship game beginning with “W” that nobody should speak its name on these forums. ;)


    I’d also like to see CV’s docking to CV’s put into game, but I suspect that’s sometime in the future.

    It would be great if you could build a ship that’s able to do this. :D
     
    #163
  4. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,843
    Likes Received:
    6,634
    Then just add in NPC crew (or grab some friends), and you'd have a nice multi-vector assault mode going :).
     
    #164
    Taniyama likes this.
  5. Taniyama

    Taniyama Captain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2017
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    489
    Oh yeah. :D
     
    #165
  6. NimrodX

    NimrodX Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2018
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    58
    It took me a while to figure out what was going on (maybe this was before the tooltip was added) but it looks like what happens when you click the "connect" button:

    The currently selected container on the right becomes the "connected to" container. Anything you collect gets dropped in there.

    BUT you can select a different container and drag things from there to your toolbar without disconecting it seems. So it seems like you're not really connected to a specific container, you're connected to "the network".

    Then you leave the thing connected for a while. You forget what container you were originally on when you connected. You pick some fruit or recover some blocks and then you're going "wtf where did my blocks get placed!"

    basically there's this problem where you're connected seemingly to everything, but one container is set as the receiver for recovered blocks or picked vegetables. but there's no indication of where that is. If you lose track then you're left searching around.

    Even if there's no separate menu for receiving container, just having some text that says "Recovery Container: Base, Finished Goods" or something as a reminder would be useful. And maybe a button to jump to the recovery container.


    Also, I would personally rather have two generic toolbars, like 1-9 and Shift 1-9, and have Connected Items wherever I want in those toolbars. This could be indicated by a different colored background or outline (whether it's an item in your inventory or one from a connected contaner).

    Generic toolbars with connected items means you could have two toolbars with lots of different parts in them when building something elaborate. Having a toolbar dedicated entirely to "connected" stuff is a bit of an arbitrary thing in UI terms.
     
    #166
    Spirit_OK likes this.
  7. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,843
    Likes Received:
    6,634
    Agreed. The problem is that each toolbar is its own separate inventory behind the scenes, and objects are physically transferred into it when places into it. If toolbars simply held links, you could freely commingle local and remote items.
     
    #167
  8. Ian Einman

    Ian Einman Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    726
    Yes, the logistics system is needed to implement automation features, which will make the game better.

    However, even after fixing some of the UI bugs, they've made changes which are simply not necessary in order to implement logistics.
    • It is not necessary to remove the internal storage of constructors, furnaces, deconstructors, and food processors.
      • They could have simply left the storage alone, possibly reducing the internal space for balance reasons. They could have removed the refrigerating aspect of the food processor storage, which wasn't needed anymore.
      • The logistics system could be retained as-is, except the constructor (or similar device) itself is a possible target for input or output.
      • This would be easier to use for new users, as well as existing users who just don't want to deal with the logistics system.
      • It is more realistic for these items to have internal storage. Look at a furnace, and tell me why I can't put anything in it? Sure looks like it would hold something. If internal storage must be removed, the appearance of the devices should change and they should be much smaller.
      • If a device always needs another device to work, why isn't it built in? That's like selling you a car with no seats in it.
    • It was not necessary to remove the ability to manipulate items in the constructor inputs/outputs.
      • They added a lock icon to show you that you couldn't manipulate the items. But why can't you manipulate the items? There's no reason for this restriction. You can take items in and out of the input/output from wherever you're standing via F4 and opening the right box. But you can't insert/remove items from the same view that you can control the construction queue. This is just not a good UI design.
      • A constructor can be linked to a cargo box anywhere in the base. But practically speaking, you need to put a box next to each constructor, because you cannot access the contents from the constructor anymore, only from the cargo box itself. So you either need to put a box next to every constructor/deconstructor/furnace and a fridge next to every food processor, or you need to use the control panel for everything.
    • It was not necessary to promote the experimental build to full alpha, prior to fixing the usability issues already identified.
      • They said they wanted "more feedback", but they had already gotten a lot of feedback. Yes, a lot of the feedback was negative, but that should have been a sign they hadn't gotten it right yet, and it needed more work.
      • Releasing it prior to acting on very much of the feedback they received has resulted in predictable negativity from the wider user base, as well as tanking their reviews.
      • If you look at the graph of recent reviews, they went from mostly positive to mostly negative as soon as Alpha 9.0 hit. Logistics and mass/volume in Alpha 9 are a source of many complaints. Bad reviews and negative first impressions will lead to less funding for the game, pure and simple.
    That's why people are frustrated. Logistics, if done right, would add something to the game. What they've done improves the game in some ways, but makes it worse in others. That's the problem. They didn't need to implement it exactly like this in order to implement automation. And automation is a very advanced feature that many people might not use, but they have negatively impacted some very basic stuff that everyone uses.

    I hope they can understand that even much of the negative feedback is intended to be constructive, and if they don't act on it, it will hurt them in the long run. It is better to admit a mistake and just try to correct it, instead of being stubborn and not listening to a lot of the user base rejecting the feature.
     
    #168
    Andipro, Bigfeet, SacredGlade and 2 others like this.
  9. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    As I mentioned earlier in this thread, constructors actually are blocked by users occupying the cargo boxes, or at least it seemed that way in testing. In other words: You can view the contents while the constructor is running, but if you open the box itself, the constructor has to stop so that the player can't cause item duplication by grabbing something at the same time it is being used as input.

    Empyrion seems to rely on clients having pre-arranged locks to avoid race conditions in distributed systems (See also: Control Panel blocking in multiplayer). Fixing this would require some core structural changes...but the benefits would be substantial.

    As for the rest of your points, I generally agree.
     
    #169
    Ian Einman likes this.
  10. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,843
    Likes Received:
    6,634
    I'd guess there are technical reasons surrounding how inventories are currently coded that made this difficult enough that the devs decided not to do it. It's not an excuse (as now would been the time to have fixed the issue), but possibly an explanation.

    Agreed; even now, it's just perhaps ready to have hit exp (to say nothing of a full release). The devs were informed by the CA testers about many of these issues, but the devs decided to push ahead with their release schedule anyway. Which is really too bad because I think a lot of the negative reactions could have been avoided if the system had functioned better from the start.
     
    #170
    Ian Einman and IronCartographer like this.
  11. Ian Einman

    Ian Einman Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    726
    Yes, that seems to be how it works, but I think it is a design flaw. The old constructor would let me rearrange stuff in the inputs, put stuff into the inputs, and take stuff out of the inputs or outputs, all while it was in the middle of constructing. I could build something, wait for it to finish and then grab it immediately once it had a stack of 20 or whatever quantity I wanted. Now, the inventory and the construction queue seem out of sync, it feels like a significant step backwards.

    They handled this just fine with the constructor's internal storage.
     
    #171
  12. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,843
    Likes Received:
    6,634
    It's not just a design flaw, but a fundamental limitation of the way inventories of all types are currently handled. I'd argue that fixing it should be one of the devs' top priorities at present, considering its effects on not just logistics but on any system that should allow multiple players to access it (like the control panel).
     
    #172
    Ian Einman and runlykhel like this.
  13. The Undead Watcher

    The Undead Watcher Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2018
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    26
    Oh boy, here we go:
    "It is not necessary to remove the internal storage of constructors, furnaces, deconstructors, and food processors."
    • The Constructor has no visible Inventory Hatches except maby the one right beside the Display, but that might just as well be a maintance hatch for the machinery itself.
    • The Furnace has only the smelting area, nothing you could store the Ores in, because they would be smelted right away, so you couldn't actually take the ore out again
    • The Deconstructor looks like he could have an internal Inventory, but that might just as well be the first part of the deconstruction of the Object, the backpart could be used for more complex Object , that requires an advanced method of deconstruction.
      • Besides that both the front and back Hatch look more like In/Outputs in a assembly line, might as well be a new type of Constructor for automated Massproduction
    • The Food Processor doesn't really have a Inventory, it's litteraly just a Stove, with no visible Hatches to dispose your Stuff to.
    So overall, your first Argument falls flat of simply being your personal Opinion, and i respect that, thats why this thread exists. And what keeps you from just placing a 2 CC's with a few CE's each both sides of your Constructor? Nothing! You can still acess the Containers the Old way, you litteraly don't have to use the Logistics Screen if you don't want to. Now onto point two:

    "It was not necessary to remove the ability to manipulate items in the constructor inputs/outputs."
    You can still do that with the Arrows on both the In- and Output.
    "But then it will open the horrible Window again, oh my gawd!"
    As of the newest Update(9.0.3?) your player inventory will always be open at the Left side, when you enter a specific Container directly(either by physically standing infront of it and interacting with it, or when you acess it via the Contsructor Arrow/Control Panels Acess button).
    Problem solved.

    Now let me tell you how it worked befor the Logistics Screen with certain situations:

    • You want to Move an Object from Cargo A to B.
      • Old Way(local): Open the Cargo A -> pull item into Inventory -> close Cargo A -> open cargo B -> insert Item(all with Shift-Clicking) [5 Actions]
      • Old Way(remote): Press P -> Select Cargo A -> Open it -> pull item into Inventory -> close Cargo A -> Select Cargo B -> open cargo B -> insert Item(all with Shift-Clicking)[8 Actions]
      • New Way(local): Open the Cargo A -> Select on the left side the Base and Cargo B -> insert Item(Shift-Clicking/Arrow for moving the entire Cargo A to B)[4 Actions]
      • New Way(remote): Press F4/Click Arrow beside the Cargo Dropdown(opens Cargo A) -> Select on the left side the Base and Cargo B -> insert Item(Shift-Clicking/Arrow for moving the entire Cargo A to B)[4 Actions!]
    The Local way is argurable, but the remote way! Cutting 4 Actions away from it? HELL YES, please and Thank you!

    Now onto point three, wich i must agree completly on: It felt weird to me, after only 2 Weeks of testing that Part 1 got released, was way too short. Yes, it got cut in half. Mostly because Christmas and New years Eve is right around the corner. Most company don't work in this time.
    So instead of releasing a broken EXP Alpha in stasis, they released a half broken Alpha build, while fixing the existing Bugs.

    Now this is how i see it, as i wrote in a previous post, the Logistics screen isn't that greate on its one(althought it can be, see "New Way(remote)") but it is a much needed change to embrace a much bigger Feature(that i can't wait to get my hands on): Automation.

    Now i'll cut it here, its 3:20 AM here and i really need some sleep. I'll probably will come back tomorrow(today?) and will argue with you some more, i hope that gives you a better insight to why this system in this form is needed.

    Also a quick note coming from one of the Factorio discussions regarding this:
    "This would be easier to use for new users, as well as existing users who just don't want to deal with the logistics system."
    They wanted to change some things in the game and some didn't like the change, they brought up the same Arguments i hear from people who oppose the new Logistic changes: "New players will be confused about this!"
    No, old ones will be confused but adapt to it! New players won't even know that there was an old system, think about that.
    But most importantly: Have fun with whatever you're doing, otherwise its not worth it!
     
    #173
    Sofianinho and IronCartographer like this.
  14. Ranger_Ric

    Ranger_Ric Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2018
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    34

    Better method... walk over to constructor, make ammo, take it out of constructor and put it in the vehicle I want it in with no annoying pull down menus. If I used your method I would then have to dick around with the same poor interface yet again (with more annoying pull down menus) when I jumped into the vehicle before I took off because I am sure as h not going to wait until I'm 9 clicks away from my base before I discover their was a mistake or glitch and what I meant to put into isn't even there.
     
    #174
    elmo likes this.
  15. Ranger_Ric

    Ranger_Ric Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2018
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    34
    Wow, now there is a quick and efficient way to make steel blocks... Yeah, let's dedicate a constructor to every item in the game in fact, that's even smarter!

    I have never seen so much nonsense in my life.

    I don't play this game to build factories to make stuff I don't need. I take what I need, I use what I take and I still have oodles of stuff left over at endgame. I have never once had a problem with the time needed to make anything in game. Bottom line is you are spending more time in menus and planning than you do playing the game in 9.0.
     
    #175
    Bigfeet and elmo like this.
  16. Ranger_Ric

    Ranger_Ric Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2018
    Messages:
    66
    Likes Received:
    34
    Amen!

    "If you look at the graph of recent reviews, they went from mostly positive to mostly negative as soon as Alpha 9.0 hit. Logistics and mass/volume in Alpha 9 are a source of many complaints. Bad reviews and negative first impressions will lead to less funding for the game, pure and simple."

    That's not an insignificant part of his post. I won't leave a negative review because I'm not spiteful but I am walking way from this game after over a thousand hours on it. Deleting all my workshop items (not going to maintain builds in a game I don't play anymore) and deleting all my videos related to this game on you tube since they are not really relevant any longer anyway.

    After a few months of the userbase walking away, they will either bury this trash and hope everyone forgets about it or someone will mod the garbage out completely. After that, I'll give it another try. Until then, we have a new version of 7 days to die due anytime now, SCUM looks cool although I haven't tried it yet and Borderlands 3 will be here soon which is worth a good year of my life with the DLC's that will inevitably follow. I am not going to waste another min on a game I don't enjoy anymore or this forum.

    See ya!
     
    #176
    elmo likes this.
  17. Ian Einman

    Ian Einman Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    726
    No it doesn't fall flat. You have not really refuted my point. Of course I stated some opinions about what I think they should have done and why, as well as my opinion that the devices should have internal storage. But my initial statement is a fact, not an opinion:

    It was not necessary to remove the internal storage to implement the logistics system.

    If you want to shoot a hole in what I said, then you need to prove that the opposite is true: that it was necessary to remove the internal storage, and prevent manipulating constructor contents from the constructor queue's view, in order to add the logistics system. But you didn't argue that, you just differed with my opinion that some of the items look like they should have internal storage.

    They have made changes that are not necessary, to implement the logistics system. They could have added the entire logistics as an advanced option, without removing the internal storage. Had they done so, the complaints about the logistics system would have been chopped in half.

    They could have added all the same features without making the early game harder or more confusing. That is my point.

    My comment about the Food Processor etc. having internal storage is an opinion. Apparently you are of a different opinion, and I respect that. But I don't agree. I can put ingredients into a 20th century food processor, oven, microwave, blender, etc. and cook or process them, and get something out of them. No, I can't queue up multiple things in a row, but I can at least make one thing at a time. The reason you can do that is because they include "internal storage".

    Who would want a microwave where someone just gives you a powerful beam and you need to provide your own box? That's weird. A microwave, oven, blender, food processor, etc. is useless without a place to put the ingredients so they are simply not manufactured without that.

    And that's my point about a constructor. If such a device existed, AND it required a special type of box for input, AND a special type of box for output, or it would not work... the device would include those boxes when it was manufactured. That's why printers have paper trays and ink tanks. If something is required for a device to function, the device typically includes it, exceptions being that devices with a large power draw require an external power source. Yes, this is just my opinion, but it is based on my observation of "how the world usually works".

    My goal here is not to argue with people on the internet, I am not trying to "be right" all the time. My concern is that a game I want to see succeed has taken a turn that may damage its reputation and lead to people abandoning/avoiding it. It has already done so, this is not a hypothetical fear.

    Defending the system is not going to fix the tanking reviews, and it will not stop some of the long-term players from leaving the game. What will fix those problems is acknowledging that the logistics system has a mix of good and bad points, and not putting on blinders to the bad points. If some people can't acknowledge that the "haters" may actually have a point, it will not steer Eleon towards fixes that will get things back on track. There is plenty of constructive criticism in these threads and lots of ideas on how to make things better.
     
    #177
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018
  18. Germanicus

    Germanicus Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2018
    Messages:
    1,341
    Likes Received:
    2,005
    If I may be so bold....Your Avatar and Name Suggests that You usually don't go anywhere UNPREPARED!;):D
     
    #178
  19. The Undead Watcher

    The Undead Watcher Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2018
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    26
    When it first got released, i defended it simply because i saw what it could actually mean for a feature, that i have been waiting for years to be added(i guess you know what it is). But as a read more and more Opinions on it, the more i undertstood where people came from, hence why i never(or maby i did, who cares, is surly don't) said its a flawless system that should have been in the game from the start.
    I also most of the time(or always) talk about the Logistics Window only since i like the idea of having two indipendent Container UI's open at a time(like i said in all of my posts? maby, meh).

    Even if they revert it back, i don't actually care enough, as long as i can tell the Constructor (or any of the "Producers") to push its finished contents into a designated Container and pull the resources needed from a specific container.
    How do we solve that(from a non-coder perspectiv)? Just readd the internal Inventory to the Drop down list and make these manipulatable in the constructor, i guess.

    tl;dr: Im happy about the Logistics Window only, the removal of the internal Inventory is just a normal change for me IMO, even if they revert it back, all i want is this pseudo push and pulling of resources from/into containers.

    And again i learned more today based on the feedback i read from the Community, hence why i started posting the Link to this discussion thread in threads on Steams forum, so people can make sure there Voices are heared.

    EDIT: Also im sorry for writing your first part of as ONLY your personal Opinion, like i said further down, it was really way too late.

    EDIT2: And to be even more clear, i don't like being forced into a certain playstyles. So just completly reverting is forcing me into a certain playstyle however Alpha 9 has forced a certain playstyle onto everyone else, therfor i have proposed i middle way solution.
    Althought i would check out IronCartographer and Geostar1024 posts, they seem to know more about the internals of the Inventory system
     
    #179
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018
  20. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    This is true. It was probably done for a combination of Volume Realism and Automation [UI/Internals] Simplicity.

    Those are technically outside the scope of this thread, but I'm not so sure they can be fully excluded: In-Game-Physical constraints inspire the UI and gameplay experience, and vice versa.

    Back on-topic, however:

    I think that the ultimate solution would be to make the Input view into a non-blocking, concurrent, multi-inventory list...and allow the Constructor to pull from multiple locations, including the player using it, with a checkbox toggle for each of Input and Output. Enabling the checkbox for Input would add the player's inventory to the list of sources, making the scrollable column of Input inventory views grow longer. Enabling the checkbox for Output would disable the alternate output locations (much like how "=Input" is a special case), and anything larger than the player's remaining inventory capacity would be disabled for crafting (Edit: With an appropriate error/tooltip message, obviously).

    Edit2: If direct-to-inventory I/O checkboxes were both enabled by default, players would start out with even fewer steps to use the Large constructor--they could craft within their inventory itself! :D:eek::D:cool:
     
    #180
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2018
    Ian Einman likes this.

Share This Page