Right Panel - Modules -Details?

[Winterwalker]

In a poll I would go with consensus ..

Setting of priority is not likely a high priority in FD alpha test ..
But in a ship it does seem much more logical to use the defcon 1 example;

If keeping the current number, how about replace priority with another word, importance, essentiality or my fav; "primacy"

 

[Sir.Tj]

Making personal/insulting comments to anyone irrespective of what role they have on the forum be it developer or poster is not in the spirit of the forum and needs to stop now please.

Thanks.

 

[Commander_Tin]

Setting of priority is probably not a high priority in FD alpha test ..

Seems like it's priority one, to me.

Or, wait, was that three? I get confused.

 

[Crayfish]

It would be quite nice to have systems listed in priority order with the most important modules at the top of the list. Then when you lower a priority for a module it would move down the list as a nice visual reinforcement of the less important status.

 

[Teefur]

A niceness of −20 is the highest priority and 19 is the lowest priority.

And that makes sense in a "niceness" context. -20 is as "not nice" as it gets.

 

[ak785]

So if i dont want my shields to go offline, i set them to a sufficiently high number and it will shutdown the lower numbers first when i draw power?

Did i misunderstand?

 

[Winterwalker]

So if i dont want my shields to go offline, i set them to a sufficiently high number and it will shutdown the lower numbers first when i draw power?

Did i misunderstand?

Not misunderstood .. (I think) you're exactly right.

this is "PRIMACY" .. cough cough ..

Other possibles (?);

# Redundancy
# Overload
# Sequencing
# Seniority
# Autoreclose

 

[Bewilderbeest]

Names?

I wonder if names would be better than numbers. It would give you a more limited scope for tuning, but wouldn't suffer from any ambiguousness.

- Critical
- High
- Medium
- Low

It'd add to any localisation that's required, and there might not be enough room in the current UI, so it's not a drop-in replacement. Colours would be a possibility, but my feeling is that they'd suffer from ambiguity too. Is red low or high priority? etc.

 

[jan]

K noted , i asumed it was the other way around , but as mike said it got low priority compared to more pressing fixes than need be done first.

 

[jabokai]

"Shutdown order" rather than priority, or even "shutdown priority" (just having the word "priority" kind of hits an impulsive recognition) would even fix it for me.

 

[Exmortis]

There are WAY more important things to be talking about than the numerical values of system priority settings. This is a storm in a teacup.

 

[ScottGust]

She's arrogant? Ha

I think that that Mike is arrogant for coming up with a system that's opposite to everyones collective understanding and then arguing to try and back it up in the face of logic.

Beside, how is your comment not an attack and personal itself?

If you have an issue - what about PM'ing it - not posting it for everyone to see your bias and lack of respect!

Wow comments like these have no place here...+1 to ban this person again...if we get a jump on the baning we may actually stay ahead of the haters..and keep the forums safe ..and full of love, for everyone xxoo,LOL

 

[Thorn Black]

Wow comments like these have no place here...+1 to ban this person again...if we get a jump on the baning we may actually stay ahead of the haters..and keep the forums safe ..and full of love, for everyone xxoo,LOL

I preffer my rum (sips) ... burp. ooops haha

 

[karacho]

suggestion:

just remove the whole priority thing.
it is not really needed!

 

[Robert Maynard]

suggestion:

just remove the whole priority thing.
it is not really needed!

I disagree - I think that it will be quite useful to allow preferential load shedding from the ship's power plant.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Glad I asked that question.

Looks like this is one of those cases where KISS is counter-intuitive for the rest of the population. It seems obvious to me that it simplifies things on the programming end, but the way things are set up, all you're doing is taunting Murphy (AKA: if there's two ways of doing things, one of which is obviously wrong, the probability of someone doing it approaches 1).

Is there an easy fix for this? Not sure, but of all the options given so far, I think relabeling it "shutdown order" would be the most intuitive.

 

[ScottGust]

+1 for "Shut Down Order".... and love for all XXOO, MOHAHAHA >

 

[jabokai]

There are WAY more important things to be talking about than the numerical values of system priority settings. This is a storm in a teacup.

I would say that everything is open to discussion, from the mighty to the trivial. While this is indeed, quite trivial, pretty much everyone had the wrong end of the stick for no need... Mike says it'll probably be sorted at some point and that's a good enough reason to have had the discussion. :smilie:

 

[Winterwalker]

There are WAY more important things to be talking about than the numerical values of system priority settings. This is a storm in a teacup.

Personally I agree that it's a valid design discussion because the side panel is always there

And comes down to a standard of idiom; a computer assigns high variable to any higher weighting, a human typically lists their priorities in order of importance. For this reason it will always feel a little wrong as the UI stands.

(and is exactly why I gave up computer science!! )

 

[Exmortis]

I would say that everything is open to discussion, from the mighty to the trivial. While this is indeed, quite trivial, pretty much everyone had the wrong end of the stick for no need... Mike says it'll probably be sorted at some point and that's a good enough reason to have had the discussion. :smilie:

I won't argue with that - I think it was just getting blown way out of proportion. You're absolutely right though, most things in the game at this point are worth discussing. My storm in a teacup remark was more related to the heated posts some were making.