Suggestion For Station Build Order

[RyanHeart]

Can we get a build order adjuster ?

It should be very easy to implement for you and it can save a lot of time and tedious work for everyone.

For example, while building my second batch of recyclers in avarice (this time terran ones) on hafway there, i realized i forgot solid storages.

Effectively this will waste a day worth of production, because i had to place solid storages all the way down of the list.

This kind of a feature would be a life saver for me

[vvvvvvvv]

Can we get a build order adjuster ?

It should be very easy to implement for you and it can save a lot of time and tedious work for everyone.

For example, while building my second batch of recyclers in avarice (this time terran ones) on hafway there, i realized i forgot solid storages.

Effectively this will waste a day worth of production, because i had to place solid storages all the way down of the list.

This kind of a feature would be a life saver for me

Currently reattaching modules puts them at the end of build queue. So if you're building stations using branch-like structures, you can grab the branch, move it away, move it back, and it will be built last. Having few extra other ways to do it, however, would be great.

[RyanHeart]

Can we get a build order adjuster ?

It should be very easy to implement for you and it can save a lot of time and tedious work for everyone.

For example, while building my second batch of recyclers in avarice (this time terran ones) on hafway there, i realized i forgot solid storages.

Effectively this will waste a day worth of production, because i had to place solid storages all the way down of the list.

This kind of a feature would be a life saver for me

Currently reattaching modules puts them at the end of build queue. So if you're building stations using branch-like structures, you can grab the branch, move it away, move it back, and it will be built last. Having few extra other ways to do it, however, would be great.

Well, i built half of my station, so i cant move it unless i want to have a brain explosion

[stooper88]

Having few extra other ways to do it, however, would be great.

Indeed, one of the limitations of reattaching branches is that it doesn't innately allow reordering of the build order of modules within the branch. A workaround to this is to manually remove and re-add intermediate modules to force them to the end of the build chain. But this doesn't always work as the build editor can be quirky at times and not accept a module's position despite the same module being previously perfectly acceptable. Even when this method works, it causes havoc with any subsequent attempts to relocate the station or parts of it (as the "detached branch" modules will no longer be linked to the "root" of the station and be moved along with it).

Typically, these needs arise when the player wants all station components to be physically connected but wants certain outermost modules to be constructed first, e.g. defense modules at the outer perimeters of a station and modules with docking functionality such as docks, piers, build modules, and scrap recyclers. Ensuring proper placement requires initially positioning "interior" modules before placing "exterior" modules, then removing and re-adding the "interior" modules to adjust the build order accordingly. It's currently doable but very tedious, especially for large, complex stations. So having the ability to directly reorder the list of "Planned and Changed Modules" in the build editor (similar to the ability to reorder ship orders) would be a tremendous boon for players.

Btw, why does this forum change the word "f i c k l e" (without spaces) to "X2 sagt Bussi auf Bauch"? Originally, I used that word in my post and noticed it randomly changed after submitting. So I revised it to quirky instead. But it seems to be a very odd bug. A search of the forum confirms this having been occurring for years

[vvvvvvvv]

A workaround to this is to manually remove and re-add intermediate modules to force them to the end of the build chain.

For the record I was talking about grabbing the module, moving it a little and then placing in the same spot. And definitely not deleting a module and adding it back from the list. So it should not take long. You grab branch by the root and reattach it.

Also, that's the reason why I use "fish skeleton" construction for stations. See here:
viewtopic.php?t=470726
viewtopic.php?t=470414

[stooper88]

A workaround to this is to manually remove and re-add intermediate modules to force them to the end of the build chain.

For the record I was talking about grabbing the module, moving it a little and then placing in the same spot. And definitely not deleting a module and adding it back from the list. So it should not take long. You grab branch by the root and reattach it.

Also, that's the reason why I use "fish skeleton" construction for stations. See here:
viewtopic.php?t=470726
viewtopic.php?t=470414

Yes, I'm aware of how to reorder entire branches by "jiggling" their base connections. But that doesn't solve all use cases. In the situations I described, the requirement was to physically place modules A, B, C, and D in an adjacent line while forcing module D to be constructed before A, B, and C. There's no way to accomplish this by simply jiggling a branch. Instead, modules A, B, and C must be removed and re-added after establishing the proper location for module D.

The point is to emphasize to ES devs that the existing methods for reordering station modules are lacking and that there are substantial justifications behind the requests to add real reordering functionality.

[vvvvvvvv]

Yes, I'm aware of how to reorder entire branches by "jiggling" their base connections. But that doesn't solve all use cases. In the situations I described, the requirement was to physically place modules A, B, C, and D in an adjacent line while forcing module D to be constructed before A, B, and C. There's no way to accomplish this by simply jiggling a branch. Instead, modules A, B, and C must be removed and re-added after establishing the proper location for module D.

The point is to emphasize to ES devs that the existing methods for reordering station modules are lacking and that there are substantial justifications behind the requests to add real reordering functionality.

Yes, the option would be to "jiggle" ABC. Nice term.

I think few menu commands could be added. "Build last" or "build branch last". And "Build/build branch first" which will put it into queue right after the module it is connected to.

[stooper88]

Yes, the option would be to "jiggle" ABC. Nice term.

No, because if you pay close attention, D is attached to C which is attached to B and so forth. So jiggling A or B or C will still place D last in the construction order.

The goal is to be able to arbitrarily dictate the order of construction independently of the order of joining modules.

There is no solution that is more straightforward and reliable than simply being able to reorder modules similarly to how ship orders can be arbitrarily reordered.

[jlehtone]

Sequence. Modules of station are a tree-like graph, with root node (and possibly cycles). For each node we can tell which nodes were added (after) to it, so the node is root of (sub)sequence.

If I build module A and then B, there is no sequence as A and B are disconnected.
When I build module C that miraculously connects to both A and B, then what sequence(s) do form?
AC? The C was added to A.
BC? The C was added to B too.
ACB? How can that be, as connections are A->C and B->C?

---

The point is that there is underlying implementation to represent a station, which also provides the "sequence" UI feature.
How would your "arbitrary order" affect and/or be possible with those current facts?

This kind of a feature would be a life saver for me

Well, you did forget to add the storage early on.

Nobody can force us to remember next time.
Nobody can force us to design station so that we can jiggle a branch, drop in new module, and then jiggle the branch back/to new spot.

[stooper88]

Sequence. Modules of station are a tree-like graph, with root node (and possibly cycles). For each node we can tell which nodes were added (after) to it, so the node is root of (sub)sequence.

If I build module A and then B, there is no sequence as A and B are disconnected.
When I build module C that miraculously connects to both A and B, then what sequence(s) do form?
AC? The C was added to A.
BC? The C was added to B too.
ACB? How can that be, as connections are A->C and B->C?

---

The point is that there is underlying implementation to represent a station, which also provides the "sequence" UI feature.
How would your "arbitrary order" affect and/or be possible with those current facts?

Whenever I read your posts, I imagine the Sphinx character from the movie Mystery Men. But I can't quite decide whether your Socratic-like responses are an effort to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian or enigmatic for the sake of being enigmatic.

What need or purpose is served by requiring "sequences" to be immutable? Even by your own sophisticated terminology, the station structure is a graph, with arbitrary branches. Yet at any particular branch, construction may partially proceed down one branch, then switch back to another, then resume down yet another. There is no rationale or purpose in forcing synchronizing between the graph traversal order and the build construction order. Also, it should be noted that station modules need not be all connected or even connected at all, hence this graph analogy and its corresponding sequence have very limited relevance.

Besides, as you said, if the player creates two separate modules A and B and then connects them with C, then the visual "sequence" becomes non-intuitive. Nonetheless the game already allows this and will derive a natural construction sequence by simply following the chronological order in which the modules were placed: A, B, C. Note that this chronological order is NOT the same as the physical order (A, C, B).

Desired Layout:
<Existing station>-<A>-<C>-<B>

Desired Build Order: A, B, C

Now consider that the player cannot determine where to first place B in order to ensure that C will properly align with A and B. The player must then place A then C then B to correctly derive the correct position for B. But this will not allow B to be constructed before C, hence the request to be able to reorder the construction sequence.

In other words, the order in which players place down modules during their DESIGN phase need not be "tightly coupled" to the order in which the modules are handled during the BUILD phase. Perhaps some players are so mentally acute and omniscient that they are able to craft stations entirely free handed without having to leverage the build editor's snap-to function, and in doing so they're able to place down every module in precisely the correct locations and order desired to allow optimal construction. But for the rest of us, reordering would be a tremendous help. I have yet to find a valid reason why modules cannot be simply reordered after they've been placed.

[RyanHeart]

Sequence. Modules of station are a tree-like graph, with root node (and possibly cycles). For each node we can tell which nodes were added (after) to it, so the node is root of (sub)sequence.

If I build module A and then B, there is no sequence as A and B are disconnected.
When I build module C that miraculously connects to both A and B, then what sequence(s) do form?
AC? The C was added to A.
BC? The C was added to B too.
ACB? How can that be, as connections are A->C and B->C?

---

The point is that there is underlying implementation to represent a station, which also provides the "sequence" UI feature.
How would your "arbitrary order" affect and/or be possible with those current facts?

This kind of a feature would be a life saver for me

Well, you did forget to add the storage early on.

Nobody can force us to remember next time.
Nobody can force us to design station so that we can jiggle a branch, drop in new module, and then jiggle the branch back/to new spot.

Yes i did so ? It shouldn't be this punishing. Both mechanic wise or lore wise. Station construction order would be one of the best Qol feature.

You can sequence your station however you want but you can't copy sequences and put them without wrecking build order thus wasting a lot of time.

While building a station, station starts working effectively you are producing while stations itself is expanding.

Let's say you want a 120 module station, you have to build things in order to make them work as you are building the station like "Ecell>Container Storage>refined metals>Solid storage>hull parts" you can sequence your station like this, but you have to do it manually and aesthetics of might be a problem and station designer turns to a sudoku game.

Sorry but an already complex game shouldn't turn your design priorities to a sudoku game.

This can't justify or remedy this kind of lack of feature. This is not hard, just tedious and game should make everything less tedious, ai is there for this. Humans should think, strategize, design, focus more on the big picture not do manual labor, inefficient things like this.

Hard shouldn't mean, tedious monotomy. Hard can be fun engaging, beatiful and satisfactory. X4 came a looong way about making things simpler which is both great for established playerbase and newcomers, it can do a lot more. To make something simple you have to know it's in and out, as simple things actually the most complex.

[adeine]

Btw, why does this forum change the word "f i c k l e" (without spaces) to "X2 sagt Bussi auf Bauch"? Originally, I used that word in my post and noticed it randomly changed after submitting. So I revised it to quirky instead. But it seems to be a very odd bug. A search of the forum confirms this having been occurring for years

Presumably a broken old word filter as it contains a sequence of letters that could be deemed naughty.

[CBJ]

It's not broken; it just happens to coincide with a group of inappropriate words in German, and the forum software doesn't provide a means to differentiate between posts in different languages when filtering.

[adeine]

Broken in the sense that words like leafage should not be filtered.

[jlehtone]

... aesthetics might be a problem ...

True Teladi caress only about the profitsss and not of the lookss.
da Vinci is willing to postpone and forfeit any and all payment until the smile is perfect.

IMHO, the game has enough fantasy even if it does not allow to achieve both goals simultaneously.


That said, I do not shout "Awesome!" nor "Ridiculous!" (even when the urge exists).
I just pointed out that what the user sees and thinks "simple" may be a "horrendous sudoku" for the devs to implement.
Ok, I don't know what is under the hood, but based on what we can see, it ain't simple (to change).

[chibiphoenix]

Agree!

I think the easiest fix would be adding arrows to the build order, like you can with orders to pilots.

It's not ideal, but it's a hell of a lot better than dragging modules around to reorder them.

[RyanHeart]

... aesthetics might be a problem ...

True Teladi caress only about the profitsss and not of the lookss.
da Vinci is willing to postpone and forfeit any and all payment until the smile is perfect.

IMHO, the game has enough fantasy even if it does not allow to achieve both goals simultaneously.


That said, I do not shout "Awesome!" nor "Ridiculous!" (even when the urge exists).
I just pointed out that what the user sees and thinks "simple" may be a "horrendous sudoku" for the devs to implement.
Ok, I don't know what is under the hood, but based on what we can see, it ain't simple (to change).

Who knows ? I don't know nor you like you said. One can only requests, assume. If one doesn't ask one can't get.
Also I never liked stoicism, i rather be a child even though one might find those words "excessive", which is understandable

[jlehtone]

One can only requests, assume. If one doesn't ask one can't get.

Indeed. Here are two questions:

• Can I get the Moon?
• Can Terraforming mission be added to the Moon sector, where the Moon could be changed -- based on player wishes -- to toxic active volcanoes, to lush green, or to anything between those?

It is the same question, isn't it? However, which one makes it easier for the devs to do what I actually desire?

---

Code: Select all

          C1
           |
C4 - C3 - C2 - C5 - C6

That is a station with six modules. If we could build them in any order, then there would be 720 ways to build the station. Nice, isn't it?
Now, we are limited to:
A: 1,2,3,4,5,6
B: 1,2,3,5,4,6
C: 1,2,3,5,6,4
D: 1,2,5,3,4,6
E: 1,2,5,3,6,4
F: 1,2,5,6,3,4
Six different orders for construction, since a module cannot be built before the previous module on its branch is ready.

the easiest fix would be adding arrows

Would it be enough to be able to switch between A, B, C, D, E, and F with arrow buttons, rather than just with the jiggle of already planned modules/sequences?

---

Code: Select all

   C1
  /  \
C2   C6
 |    |
C3   C5
  \  /
   C4

This is more interesting, as we did place C1 to C5 as "one chain", but the C6, does it create new branch from C1, or continue the chain from C5?
While build would always start from C1, the "sixth connection" that creates a cycle could be "reordered" to be any one of them. After that we have (up to) two branches like in the previous case.

---

Then again, when our station has been bombarded to 0.01%, with only one module "not dead", does its repair/rebuild follow any particular order? Specifically, the order it was built originally with?

Not sure, for I have have not tried that. IIRC, you can happily remove arbitrary existing modules and later add new.

Therefore, if we assume that repair does not require specific order, then the initial build should not require either.

What that is likely to mean -- technically -- is that there could/should be an additional list that is the order of build, and which is initialized from the order we add modules (the current list that we see). A list we can later reorder by some UI (for the yet unbuilt modules).

[RyanHeart]

One can only requests, assume. If one doesn't ask one can't get.

Indeed. Here are two questions:

• Can I get the Moon?
• Can Terraforming mission be added to the Moon sector, where the Moon could be changed -- based on player wishes -- to toxic active volcanoes, to lush green, or to anything between those?

It is the same question, isn't it? However, which one makes it easier for the devs to do what I actually desire?

---

Code: Select all

          C1
           |
C4 - C3 - C2 - C5 - C6

That is a station with six modules. If we could build them in any order, then there would be 720 ways to build the station. Nice, isn't it?
Now, we are limited to:
A: 1,2,3,4,5,6
B: 1,2,3,5,4,6
C: 1,2,3,5,6,4
D: 1,2,5,3,4,6
E: 1,2,5,3,6,4
F: 1,2,5,6,3,4
Six different orders for construction, since a module cannot be built before the previous module on its branch is ready.

the easiest fix would be adding arrows

Would it be enough to be able to switch between A, B, C, D, E, and F with arrow buttons, rather than just with the jiggle of already planned modules/sequences?

---

Code: Select all

   C1
  /  \
C2   C6
 |    |
C3   C5
  \  /
   C4

This is more interesting, as we did place C1 to C5 as "one chain", but the C6, does it create new branch from C1, or continue the chain from C5?
While build would always start from C1, the "sixth connection" that creates a cycle could be "reordered" to be any one of them. After that we have (up to) two branches like in the previous case.

---

Then again, when our station has been bombarded to 0.01%, with only one module "not dead", does its repair/rebuild follow any particular order? Specifically, the order it was built originally with?

Not sure, for I have have not tried that. IIRC, you can happily remove arbitrary existing modules and later add new.

Therefore, if we assume that repair does not require specific order, then the initial build should not require either.

What that is likely to mean -- technically -- is that there could/should be an additional list that is the order of build, and which is initialized from the order we add modules (the current list that we see). A list we can later reorder by some UI (for the yet unbuilt modules).

Dear, Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work against me.

[vvvvvvvv]

Code: Select all

   C1
  /  \
C2   C6
 |    |
C3   C5
  \  /
   C4

This is more interesting, as we did place C1 to C5 as "one chain", but the C6, does it create new branch from C1, or continue the chain from C5?

In the game, module has only one parent it is attached to. So the chain above is equivalent to this:

Code: Select all

C1-C2-C3-C4-C5-C6-

Rings do not form circular connections.