Sign in to follow this  
moonpie

add confirmation window when adding items of different ql to a bsb

Recommended Posts

Can we get a window added that is a simple yes or no selection window when we drop items that are of different ql(configurable in the settings ui on how much difference before warning) into a bsb and can be ignored while holding shift during dropping

Say i have a bsb with ql 100 silver and i am trying to drag ql 95 silver into the window next to it but instead accidentally drag it into that one now the ql 100 is ruined(or any other scenario really)

Now say you have it standing on 2 ql difference before notification and thus it pops up with a window saying "are you sure you want to drop these items into this bulk storage bin as the quality is beyond "insert set ql here""

It would save a lot of us a lot of headaches as im sure almost anyone here has done this at some point in time when doing any kind of task with quality sorting

Oh and for at times where you dont want this to constantly pop up just set the configurable quality to like 100 and there you go it wont ever show up

edit: on a bsb by bsb basis as part of the permission system would be even better

Edited by moonpie
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, moonpie said:

Oh and for at times where you dont want this to constantly pop up just set the configurable quality to like 100 and there you go it wont ever show up

 

I like this idea: configure a bin/shelf to only accept QL of greater than X.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's on a per BSB base, okay-ish. If it's a global UI setting as proposed and I either cannot effectively protect my 100QL stocks or it would pop up at every other opportunity I sort something into a crap BSB, absolutely no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we could have a Quality Check ON/OFF checkbox and a couple of MIN and MAX 0-100 settings for locked BSBs / FSBs in the Permissions > Manage Items dialog -

That way you could set this feature ON/OFF plus add a MIN and MAX QL accepted per container. 

Any unlocked / un-managed container would have it switched OFF by default and would accept any QL.

Just ideas from the weary botanist. :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a bsb by bsb basis would sound even better yes *goes to add that to his post*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would really like to see something similar to the bulk sorted mod from Wurm Unlimited, but it's implementation should not be so... choppy. The idea of shelves that accept certain QL is along the right track, but I'd like to see something truly inventive that makes sense and doesn't require player configuration to achieve the proper result. Also, shelves would make the interface harder to manage. Any ideas for ways to make this happen without just sorting by groups of 10QL and 1QL past 90?

PflhcZQ.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you said "that doesnt require player configuration" but either its fully automated and people complain like they do about the sorting mod from wu or it is to a degree player configured

So the only real way besides shelves and auto sorting that i can think of is player configuration either through the permission system or via the right click menu of something like "right click on bsb > hover over configure > click set ql range > fill out a number that you want for that bsb to be sorting at" that really is the only other way i can think of how that system would work if you dont want automatic or shelves

There are other ways eg "right click on item in bsb > click lock ql" or a few others but they again would require player configuration in that sense then again the lock ql would be nice for say ql 100 being destroyed

But i do think in the end of the day it will probably come down to a combination of idea's some offering more flexibility and others being more strict(player configuration vs automatic)

1 other thing could be similar to the mod but with the ability to set a min ql  and anything under that gets thrown into the lowest ql one( say you set that to ql 40 and anything 40 or lower goes into 1) and then the value range of 10 so that everything gets stored around 40 50 60 and so on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think we should reject ideas based on what people will complain about or not. A good solution is to allow sorted/not sorted as it is in the WU mod. If people dont like the auto sorting system they can disable it and do what has been done since bsbs were invented: manual sort.

 

I'd like to see WO absorbing more qol mod ideas into its core functionality. Many of those mods are great ideas the WU development team can draw from to improve the game.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorting is fine when you want this, but would hate to loose out on averaging ql's of bsb's, most of us have made sorting work with 2-3 bsu's

 

with the invention of runes, 100 ql everything is no longer a big deal, sure it bites to toss your 95ql creation into your 100 ql imping iron, but not exactly the end of the world either, and if it was something like steel lumps, better not be so forgetful

 

and hell no to having a confirmation pop up 

 

 

Edited by JakeRivers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sindusk said:

 Any ideas for ways to make this happen without just sorting by groups of 10QL and 1QL past 90?

What about using a system like the Measuring Jug?

 

Instead of "set volume to"  you could have a "set sorting to"  with each setting being the range of quality by which you want to sort.

So...

set sorting to -->  1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50.

or could also be,

set sorting above [  ] to [  ].

So you could say above [70] to [5], for example, or above [90] to [.05]

 

Not quite inventive and does require some configuration, but also allows for granular personal preference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sindusk said:

Any ideas for ways to make this happen without just sorting by groups of 10QL and 1QL past 90?

 

I planned to just throw out a quick and possibly stupid idea, but the text and some pondering that went into this turned out longer than expected. So now it's a long, elaborated and possibly stupid idea:

Rather than fixed intervals, a BSB maintains exactly K quality levels in its stocks, K being some number. Not important now.

Think of it a little bit like clustering, except that cluster assignment only works "downwards":  a freshly inserted 67QL item will not be sorted into a 70QL group, but instead be sorted into the next lower tier. Once K items of the same type and of distinct quality levels have been inserted into a BSB, all "clusters" are established and future items are averaged into them by assigning them to their corresponding stock as described before.

This will prevent "polluting" your stocks, as their QL can only go up; except for the lowest tier which will even take in items of worst quality. But it's the players "personal worst quality", depending on their skill and habits. It's entirely adaptive to who uses the BSB and how.

 

Small example: K = 3, BSB is empty

Insert items of type X with quality levels 90, 70, 30

BSB contains: 1x90, 1x70, 1x30 <- K distinct groups now, no more are being added

Insert new item of quality 60 -> Assigned to next lowest tier, which is at 30QL. Item is averaged into this group.

BSB now contains: 1x90, 1x70, 2x45 (weighted average of 1x30 and 1x60, as everyone is probably familiar with)

 

The idea behind K being any number is that it should be one where players have sufficient granularity for different purpose QLs, but not be overwhelmed by a gazillion possible QL levels, most of which are practically the same and not worth separating for the player, which I believe adequately elaborates the "choppiness" of this system. (Among the fact that the aggregations of 10QL intervals are rather frustrating for someone who is at _9.9 skill, except when it's 99.9 skill where 1QL intervals apply, and possibly have their best produce ruined by this autosorter.)

K could also be the one configuration a player has to make on the BSB, with the default being 1. Which would, conveniently enough for the naysayers, maintain the default BSB behaviour as it is now. After that, ideally the player doesn't have to touch the configuration again.

 

They basically say "I want to have this specific number of distinct quality levels, and the BSB makes it happen based on what is put into it."

 

Some drawbacks I can immediately think of:

 

Skills surpassing old stocks

We're worried that we ruin our stocks, but our stocks can also hold us back - you've been collecting a certain resource for ages and the stocks are at 70QL at average, but can produce 80QL by now. The only way is to resort the entire stock completely, which is currently fine, but I can imagine that the system above may exacerbate this to a point where it's frustrating, because you just want the new top tier cluster to be the best of your best and not this blast from the past.

Possible solution: Allow players to select 2 groups and merge them forcefully. Now there are K - 1 clusters and the next entry will form a new cluster with its own QL by definition, this would open up the window to simply establish new clusters if so desired and aggregate old stocks of quality levels that have become of the practically same value. Think about how 40QL may have once been good, but 50QL was great. Now you're at 70QL and both of the former are just "mid level tier" to you, so merging them doesn't hurt and instead let's you start new stocks at your new best.

 

 

Quality level creep

As I said before, all except for the lowest quality tier can only go up, but I imagine this may not reflect the distribution of quality levels a player produces as they grow their skills, and instead cause the top K-1 groups to converge to the same quality level while the trash tier stocks accumulate all the gunk.

Possible solution: Allow some "upward movement" and slight pollution of stocks after all so that the clusters are more "stable". For instance, if 10% leeway was allowed, an 81QL item would still be assigned to a 90QL cluster. The exact percentage would be subject to tweaking, testing, simulation or even just some rought calculations made on coffee splattered sheets to determine which strikes the best balance between keeping pollution low and cluster growth stable. This would be the more sophisticated approach, but I think the feature proposed for the solution of the former problem would also allow players to adequately deal with the QL creep on their own.

Edited by Flubb
Some more examples because why would anyone need to go to sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-1 to adding more mouseclicks with pop up windows "are you sure?" PLEASE NO.  

 

+1 to adding an option to set any bsb or crate to accept just within a certain ql range, which you can also take away by a simple right click untick box.  

This means you can drag a heap of stuff in one go and the box will only accept items within a certain ql range, eliminating a whole ton of mouseclicks.

 

+100 to actually have the bsb or crate sort the stuff into values of ten, by itself, with a simple right click "sort" option, which can be turned off to allow averaging of bulk stuff with a simple right click "disable sort" option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice responses. I read through it all and I think I have an idea. What would you think about allowing a form of "splitter" into a BSB? An example:

  • You insert a splitter and set it to 90QL. Everything below 90QL would then be averaged together, and everything above 90QL would be averaged. This gives you two piles of bulk items.
  • You then insert another splitter and set it to 50QL. Everything below 50QL would be averaged together, everything between 50QL and 90QL would be averaged together, and everything above 90QL would be averaged together.

This gives the player the ability to split their BSB in a variety of ways, while being pretty clean in regards to how it's handled. If players don't want it to split, they simply don't add any splitters. It would be extra work on behalf of the player to create and install the splits instead of requiring new interfaces or similar. It also doesn't interrupt the existing gameplay, and instead is a pure addition.

 

Would probably need to limit the amount of splitters, potentially based on the QL of the BSB/FSB, which would provide incentive for carpenters to actually improve those objects.

 

What do you guys think?

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds cool!

 

Would this work in bulk storage unit shelves, as well? And could rare BSB/FSBs get +1 possible splitter? :)

 

EDIT: I see a possible bug where installing/removing a splitter removes rarity from your bins...

Edited by Roccandil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sindusk said:

Nice responses. I read through it all and I think I have an idea. What would you think about allowing a form of "splitter" into a BSB? An example:

  • You insert a splitter and set it to 90QL. Everything below 90QL would then be averaged together, and everything above 90QL would be averaged. This gives you two piles of bulk items.
  • You then insert another splitter and set it to 50QL. Everything below 50QL would be averaged together, everything between 50QL and 90QL would be averaged together, and everything above 90QL would be averaged together.

This gives the player the ability to split their BSB in a variety of ways, while being pretty clean in regards to how it's handled. If players don't want it to split, they simply don't add any splitters. It would be extra work on behalf of the player to create and install the splits instead of requiring new interfaces or similar. It also doesn't interrupt the existing gameplay, and instead is a pure addition.

 

Would probably need to limit the amount of splitters, potentially based on the QL of the BSB/FSB, which would provide incentive for carpenters to actually improve those objects.

 

What do you guys think?

I would like the option to tick a box which would automatically split the ql into steps of ten, so I don't have to manually go set that for every container.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sindusk said:

Nice responses. I read through it all and I think I have an idea. What would you think about allowing a form of "splitter" into a BSB? An example:

  • You insert a splitter and set it to 90QL. Everything below 90QL would then be averaged together, and everything above 90QL would be averaged. This gives you two piles of bulk items.
  • You then insert another splitter and set it to 50QL. Everything below 50QL would be averaged together, everything between 50QL and 90QL would be averaged together, and everything above 90QL would be averaged together.

This gives the player the ability to split their BSB in a variety of ways, while being pretty clean in regards to how it's handled. If players don't want it to split, they simply don't add any splitters. It would be extra work on behalf of the player to create and install the splits instead of requiring new interfaces or similar. It also doesn't interrupt the existing gameplay, and instead is a pure addition.

 

Would probably need to limit the amount of splitters, potentially based on the QL of the BSB/FSB, which would provide incentive for carpenters to actually improve those objects.

 

What do you guys think?

Now you need to implement this on Revenant. Sorry. :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sindusk said:

Nice responses. I read through it all and I think I have an idea. What would you think about allowing a form of "splitter" into a BSB? An example:

  • You insert a splitter and set it to 90QL. Everything below 90QL would then be averaged together, and everything above 90QL would be averaged. This gives you two piles of bulk items.
  • You then insert another splitter and set it to 50QL. Everything below 50QL would be averaged together, everything between 50QL and 90QL would be averaged together, and everything above 90QL would be averaged together.

This gives the player the ability to split their BSB in a variety of ways, while being pretty clean in regards to how it's handled. If players don't want it to split, they simply don't add any splitters. It would be extra work on behalf of the player to create and install the splits instead of requiring new interfaces or similar. It also doesn't interrupt the existing gameplay, and instead is a pure addition.

 

Would probably need to limit the amount of splitters, potentially based on the QL of the BSB/FSB, which would provide incentive for carpenters to actually improve those objects.

 

What do you guys think?

 

No pop ups, so you could set a splitter to say 99 and another to 98 and so on?

 

What would happen if someone removed a splitter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see this being a big help in storage management and more areas for carpentry/fine carpentry.

 

Maybe have the splitter be jammed by what it controls as a QL(so a 50ql splitter would need you to remove the 50ql inside before you could remove the splitter). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sindusk said:

Nice responses. I read through it all and I think I have an idea. What would you think about allowing a form of "splitter" into a BSB? An example:

  • You insert a splitter and set it to 90QL. Everything below 90QL would then be averaged together, and everything above 90QL would be averaged. This gives you two piles of bulk items.
  • You then insert another splitter and set it to 50QL. Everything below 50QL would be averaged together, everything between 50QL and 90QL would be averaged together, and everything above 90QL would be averaged together.

This gives the player the ability to split their BSB in a variety of ways, while being pretty clean in regards to how it's handled. If players don't want it to split, they simply don't add any splitters. It would be extra work on behalf of the player to create and install the splits instead of requiring new interfaces or similar. It also doesn't interrupt the existing gameplay, and instead is a pure addition.

 

Would probably need to limit the amount of splitters, potentially based on the QL of the BSB/FSB, which would provide incentive for carpenters to actually improve those objects.

 

What do you guys think?

 

Sounds like it would work, but also sounds like it would be a bit overly (and unnecessarily) complicated in practice to me.  I've been playing on servers with the WU mod and it works just fine. In fact it's one of my favorite mods and I don't like playing on servers that don't use it.   It's simple and easy to use.  Simply on or off, and done with it.  Have a toggle to make it sorting/non-sorting. Could just leave the default as non-sorting so it doesn't mess with existing ones.  I'm not sure I understand what you mean by it being "choppy" unless you mean it chops it into too many ql levels?   Personally I think the trade off would be worth it for the ease of use.  But then I'm not a fan of having to fiddle with things for micro-management.

 

But I could live with it.  :)

Edited by Amadee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevermind my post then. The splitter item is way better.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dumb question -

 

I assume the BSB/FSB with a splitter would hold the same overall container volume, but shared as needed across all grades of contents, regardless of distribution?

 

i.e. what I don't want to see is 'compartments' like partitions on a hard drive, some with unused volume and others full to the max. :) 

 

for example:  an FSB would still hold 16,000 pumpkins total - whether that is 16,000x 50ql pumpkins.... or .... 1x 1ql pumpkin and 15,999x 99ql pumpkins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Amadee said:

 

Sounds like it would work, but also sounds like it would be a bit overly (and unnecessarily) complicated in practice to me.  I've been playing on servers with the WU mod and it works just fine. In fact it's one of my favorite mods and I don't like playing on servers that don't use it.   It's simple and easy to use.  Simply on or off, and done with it.  Have a toggle to make it sorting/non-sorting. Could just leave the default as non-sorting so it doesn't mess with existing ones.  I'm not a fan of having to fiddle with things for micro-management.

2

THIS.

Quote

But I could live with it.

Wurm is my form of relaxation.  Get rid of micro-management and more complication.

 :)

 

Fixed it for ya! :P 

Edited by Fairyshine
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muse said:

Dumb question -

 

I assume the BSB/FSB with a splitter would hold the same overall container volume, but shared as needed across all grades of contents, regardless of distribution?

 

i.e. what I don't want to see is 'compartments' like partitions on a hard drive, some with unused volume and others full to the max. :) 

 

for example:  an FSB would still hold 16,000 pumpkins total - whether that is 16,000x 50ql pumpkins.... or .... 1x 1ql pumpkin and 15,999x 99ql pumpkins.

The eliminates so many mouse clicks and dragging and extra storage containers,  AND STRESS.  If you have a raft full of harvested stuff from all different qualities, you highlight the lot, drag it into the container in one go, and it automatically sorts into different ql levels of ten, 20, 30, etc.  However, the overall volume of stuff remains unchanged.  You effectively need one fsb to have all your crops and veggies and meats automatically sorted into ranks of ten ql, while the overall content adds up to the 16k to make it full.  You won't need ten fsb to have the qualities sorted any more.  You will need one to have it all sorted in the one container in the different ql ranges.  You won't need ten bsbs, you will need one.  You wont need ten crates, you will need one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And over 90 ql it sorts by 1.   So 90, 91, 92, etc, etc. (with the wu mod, as-is).  No muss, no fuss.    :)

Edited by Amadee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this