[1.04b1] Traffic Sign Working Intermittently

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: GodwinW

Hm but I think you missed that edit otherwise you'd already have known that 100% traffic signs would block a straight line.

I read it. Trust but verify. It would have been more clear had I been able to put both images in the same post.

As with my other threads, I tend to document the suppositions with tests (and quote the sources).

My posts always take 20 minutes of edits before they are done.

[GodwinW]

Ok

You could also use imgur btw to get the images in 1 post. prt scr -> ctrl+v on imgur -> open image in new tab -> ctrl+v link address.

[Gozzon]

It would be fine if that percentage of LIS just stops continuing, it wouldn't break anything.

It would 100% break my logistic network so I 100% disagree that it should just stop. Why on earth would you throw away resources just when you can have actually working logistics network with the system.

Right now the 95% block allowing to pass 100% when no other options exists is a GREAT tool on allowing some lines to supply 100% while other lines only allow 5% to go to that direction and 95% to where you really need them. Only better option would be to be able to define the direction of traffic sign and I think that might be a bit excessive

[GodwinW]

I was just commenting on the mechanical aspect: It wouldn't require redesign of systems or anything. Nothing would break in that regard. Of course existing logistics systems could seriously change due to the change.

And yes I like that it ignores it like I wrote elsewhere: if you delete a fork and forget a sign, the system has your back. There is indeed no reason to throw away resources. And you can use it like you say as well: quick rerouting.

But I'm not sure why you reacted to a small part of what I wrote, out of context, that I myself was nuancing just below. I too am very fine with the way it works, I wrote that: it may well be better to cause a bit of confusion rather than changing it to avoid confusion for some people at the cost of less/different functionality.

[Gozzon]

It was the most coherent summary of the discussed to the alternative way of working for logistics.

I didn't mean to target it at you specifically sorry if it seemed like that I did read that you do prefer the current system.


I actually think it would be more confusing to include another way how logistics are being calculated. Right now we have simple weight based system and this change would be a exception to that system. Not to mention the issues that this would prevent some use cases

[GodwinW]

Ah ok, well, we agree

[Vic]

It is working as intended.

[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.

[Destragon]

I recently saw a youtuber place traffic signs on the middle of the road like this, without him realising that there's actually no benefit from doing that.
I think traffic signs should ultimately not be placeable on a road where there is no junction. It's just a newbie trap.

[zgrssd]

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.

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.

[ZiggyMaca]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

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.

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]

ORIGINAL: ZiggyMaca

ORIGINAL: zgrssd

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

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]

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]

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.

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.

[zgrssd]

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.