[Poll] Which priority system do you think was better?

[IvanX]

Okay, so we have a collison between those who like the old 1-9 system more and those who like the new system that was rolled back. Lets see how many supporters each side has, and help devs choose which one they should release and use as the base point for advancing. We all understand that both systems are lacking.

1-9 priority system pros: more levels to assign; clear and simple UI; any prioritized job gets done faster

1-5/1*-5* priority system pros: better symbiosis with jobs; base tasks get done in time; you can still use 1-9 mechanics via 1*-5*

 

Feel free to comment if you think I put the post in a non favorable way towards one system or another. Or if you have any other pros for either systems

[Keyimin]

I appreciate the poll, as it's good to get a basic idea of where the community's preference falls on this one. That said, for me, it's a bit of a false dichotomy.

1. Most importantly, the poll doesn't account for the change in how jobs relate to these priorities. Under the 1-5* system, occupations were preferred over all other jobs except those that had starred priorities. In this new 1-9 system, any job that has a higher priority than the occupation-specific job will override said occupation-specific jobs). So it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges in that key respect.

2. I don't think the answer to the cons of both systems is to choose one or the other. I think it's how can the pros be combined while avoiding the cons? With the new occupations system, I think dupes preferring their specific jobs should be the default absent some "instruction" to ignore their jobs in favor of some other job.

Then the million-dollar question to solve the problem, imho, is what's the best way to handle those instructions so that all jobs we need doing get done efficiently while allowing each player the flexibility for their preferred playstyle without being overly complex or micro-managey?

What if our dupes' occupations simply had a "pause" button of some kind? This way, if we wanted a farmer to stop caring about farming to go help build something, for example, we could just effectively stay "stop farming for now" and let them get on with that other job? A system of 1-5* priorities, where dupes prefer their occupations, but with the extra ability to redirect them when needed to get stuff done to avoid needless starring of tasks or removal of jobs (allowing us to reserve stars strictly for those "i always want this done and don't care who does it" jobs)?

[midjones]

I don't think we need 9 priority levels, but the 1-5 plus strict 6-9 is also too much IMO. I'd like 1-5, default is 2, and jobs only prioritize within the same priority level. Basically, same as it is in current patch except make it 1-5 with default of 2.

[ScottFree]

I liked the 1-5*

People are grappling with the reality that some jobs will not get done. This fact is true of all the systems used. The job system emphasize this fact because players will need to print more duplicants and/or assign dupes to most pressing job titles at the moment. Or scale back their expectations for what's possible each cycle. There has to be a trade off somewhere. The super dupes of the past were not intended and I don't think they would be as fun.

Here is my suggestion for priorities

1-"Idle", tasks to completed by idle duplicants of any job

2-"Queued", tasks added to the end of the queue for that specific job type

3-"Expedite", tasks added to the top of the queue for that specific job type

4-"Any", tasks for the first available duplicant (of any job type) after they finish their current task

5-"Immediate", tasks that interrupts the nearest duplicants or all and to be completed before any other

I think giving priorities names help clarify what they do. Blending the job vs any dupe priorities makes it clear which get done and why. I'd go as far as to add a 0th priority just for planning and will not be done until they are raised higher.

[IvanX]

@keyimin, the whole idea about the poll is infact choosing which one do we use for the time being. The answer to cons can never be found instantly, it's a road devs should take by weighting everything and searching for a solution. It could take a day, a week, or a whole year to figure out, but until then, we gotta play under one setting or another.

@midjones, your suggestion is clearly just the development of 1-9 system, back when i played in 1-9, tbh i sometimes used over 5 priorities, like 7 of them, rarely would i use all 9, but some might have?

@ScottFree, your system is even harder to grasp, it's not intuitive at all, I mean if you analize it, you suggest removing priorities at all, and adding urgency instead. What if i have 3 dig sites? one super long term - digging to china, another one to expand base, not too urgent, and another one is your currently spotified oil quest site. You only give room for two priority levels 2-3, while 1-5/*1-*5, has 5 priority scales for the same job type. Even if we were to go towards that direction, we gotta take first step - which is the goal of this poll.

 

[Kasuha]

Neither was good. 1-9 had good resolution but lacks job preference. 1-5/* lacks resolution and the job preference is too strict.

Most versatile (but maybe not extremely comfortable) would be a two-priority system, 1-9/0-9. First number is priority for the related jobs. Second number is priority for all other jobs with 0 meaning "don't do it". 5/4 or 5/5 could be the default. 5/0 would be the task done strictly by the job. 9/9 would be an emergency task done by everyone. 

Of course "related job" would also involve deliveries and digs necessary to do the job. And when there's no active dupe with corresponding job, then everyone would count as related job. I believe such system might work well.

[TheOlz]

I voted for 1-9, whist accepting it has issues, I prefer that system.

What I do want to see is job preferences laid over the top of the 1-9 system.

Not expecting that we will necessarily see that for the release out of beta branch, but ultimately when prioritization is revisited and re-balanced that's where I'd like it to end up.

Kasuha idea sits pretty well with me also, I think a 0 priority is something I'd like that's missing from both systems.  As it could also be used as a "planning" priority. 

[Priitm]

i like to use all 9 priority levels  (1-4 to organize my storage) but i started to really like that 1-5 job priority system we had. My way to handle its "shortcomings" was that i had 1-2 "jobless dupes" i assigined to jobs i needed help in the current moment

maybe the best solution would be that in jobs tab each slot has small check box "priority this job over others". like, if you check it on farmer, that farmer will do all farming jobs and then goes for other jobs as general priority list. And we have both system good points in one system...

[PaulV]

I like the new system a lot more, it just needs some more work.

[goboking]

As someone who uses 3 different settings just for my storage, the 1-5 system just didn't give me the flexibility and control I want in a colony survival game.

[Roxanne4018]

1 hour ago, goboking said:

As someone who uses 3 different settings just for my storage, the 1-5 system just didn't give me the flexibility and control I want in a colony survival game.

I too use 3 different settings just for storage and found that 1-5* worked a bit better.

[Surfinite]

I voted 1*-5*, but my overall preference would be a 1*-9* that works in exactly he same way as the 1*-5* but with more resolution. The most important aspect to me is that job tasks get done before any non related tasks. 

3 hours ago, Priitm said:

i like to use all 9 priority levels  (1-4 to organize my storage) but i started to really like that 1-5 job priority system we had.

I know you said you did like the 1-5 but I wanted to point out that if you only used 1-4 in the old system for storage organisation, then you basically had the same system as soon as you had a groundskeeper/courier dupe. 

You can use 1-5 for all your storage items and no dupes in other jobs would do sweeping until they had run out of their own work to do. 

[Priitm]

55 minutes ago, Surfinite said:

I know you said you did like the 1-5 but I wanted to point out that if you only used 1-4 in the old system for storage organisation, then you basically had the same system as soon as you had a groundskeeper/courier dupe.

Not really, as then they would sweep before delivering items for builders and for other jobs...

[Kasuha]

36 minutes ago, Surfinite said:

You can use 1-5 for all your storage items and no dupes in other jobs would do sweeping until they had run out of their own work to do. 

But then they would go sweep into priority 5 compactors instead of helping other dupes where they're overloaded.

The tasks in the game have several dimensions.

First, they're "orders" and "chores".

Orders are what the player marks to be done (building, digging, sweeping, deconstruction...) and support tasks for them (delivery of material, digging of the place needed for the building). These need to have their own dimension of priorities in the sense "do this before that".

Chores are tasks generated by the in-game machinery. Running a hamster wheel, fertilizing plants, harvesting etc. Also these need their own priorities (do this chore before that chore).

Then both chores and orders need two classes of priority - normal and urgent. These need to be done in order urgent orders, urgent chores, normal orders, and normal chores.

With 1-9 priorities, this is manageable. 1-4 for normal chores, 5-6 for normal orders, 7-8 for urgent chores, and 9 for urgent orders.   With 1-5 you don't have the resolution. You get 1 for normal chores, 2-3 for normal orders, 3-4 for urgent chores, and 5 for urgent orders. It is manageable but tight, the overlap gets uncomfortable and you lose ability to assign compactors priority levels while still keeping them in normal chore category.

But when the job preference (or need thereof) comes into the picture, it adds another dimension. Every order and chore suddenly needs to be assigned to two categories, how it appears to their job and how it appears to other jobs. And in general, the other jobs can get any of the lower categories, including "don't do that".

 

The system could look something like this: You select a number 1-5 for priority (default could be 1), you select the urgency (e.g. using key "*", default could be "normal") and adjust the category shift for other jobs e.g. using keys "-" and "+" with "0" being shortcut for "don't do it". Default could be one category lower.

[Aeobrix]

One of the key arguments I've seen for the 1-9 priority system is to increase granularity, and be able to queue up loads of jobs, in some semblance of a priority order, and leave dupes to it. However, as the latest hotfix/rollback is showing, dupes now no longer prioritise tasks in their assign Job. This completely defeats the purpose of the Occupational Update. The strict setting was fantastic for queuing up a few jobs for (as an example) your miners, but then letting them move onto other jobs only once their assigned mining tasks were finished.

Perhaps it would be best to have 1-9, AND a strict setting, so actually Job assignments can be respected.

Slightly off topic, but I also think the re-implementation of permanent skill levelling is misjudged because, with levelling athletics as well, it completely invalidates both the Tubular and Occupational updates. I really liked the way I could say "this dupe is my miner, that's what he does", it just gave them a bit more personality and helped me get more attached to them than "this is one of my many super-dupes who can do literally anything like a faceless swarm of ants"...

[ScottFree]

1 hour ago, Kasuha said:

With 1-9 priorities, this is manageable. 1-4 for normal chores, 5-6 for normal orders, 7-8 for urgent chores, and 9 for urgent orders.   With 1-5 you don't have the resolution. You get 1 for normal chores, 2-3 for normal orders, 3-4 for urgent chores, and 5 for urgent orders. It is manageable but tight, the overlap gets uncomfortable and you lose ability to assign compactors priority levels while still keeping them in normal chore category.

You are omitting hat switching with the job system.

When players wanted to tasks done in a hurry, they raised the priority level. That made the game put more duplicants on the task. Changing priority levels was the 1-9 version of hat switching. With jobs, instead of raising the priority, you increase the number duplicants with that job. You don't need to raise the priority numbers and manage 9 levels of granularity to get work done. Just hat switch dupes. That's a different way to solve a common problem.

The goal of all goals is to get work done. Having multiple bins with different priority is one way to get them filled. Another way is to sweep everything up and let the dupes sort them into assigned bins. The job system encourage the "sweep everything up" tactic and the 1-9 system allows for a gradual completion. I don't see either as being superior to the other, just different ways of thinking. At some point, I stopped allowing dupes to auto-sweep and manually used the sweep function. Maybe that's why I look at this differently. Sweeping is a job to be completed just as much as digging but for whatever reason, players treat sweeping (and bins) as long projects instead of something to do at once.

[TheScaryOne]

I too like the granularity of the 1-9 system, and think it needs to be better combined with the strict priorities of the job system rather than go to the 1-5 system. Being able to have a coal storage near my coal gens at a higher priority so dupes would come fill it up from the main storage room elsewhere in the base (but not at a priority that would interrupt work) is more difficult to execute with the 1-5 system.

39 minutes ago, Aeobrix said:

Slightly off topic, but I also think the re-implementation of permanent skill levelling is misjudged because, with levelling athletics as well, it completely invalidates both the Tubular and Occupational updates. I really liked the way I could say "this dupe is my miner, that's what he does", it just gave them a bit more personality and helped me get more attached to them than "this is one of my many super-dupes who can do literally anything like a faceless swarm of ants"...

I think 20 is maybe a little too high for the passive levelling and being able to hit 20 athletics by cycle 40 is way too fast, but without passive levelling my three dupes I started the colony with are roughly equivalent to the dupe who popped out of the machine at cycle 300, which makes my dupes feel generic and replaceable, rather than unique or skilled. Some amount of passive levelling + permanently earned job bonuses feel the best to me progress wise, the system just needs more tuning.

[MorsDux]

I use 7 priority levels, 5 just doesnt cut it for me. It was annoying to use the 2 layered system, too many clicks. 

[The Plum Gate]

I miss strict priorities. Maybe job related priorities would outweigh others by an order of 2.

I'm having reservations about losing strict priorities - feel like it was implied that strict priorities override all others. 

[IvanX]

@MorsDux, if you're using shortcuts for priority (which everyone should be using), then 1*-4* were keys from 6 to 9, meaning you don't really need press the button,

But i kinda agree with @Kasuha, It'd be better off with something like shift for adding urgency. Aka 1-9 work with job, press shift down and you can assign *1-*9. Or, just rename priorities to 6*-10*, to make it a bit more obvious that 1* is higher than 5

[Nativel]

Those who selecting 1-5 will cry after they gain skill in the game, and when they do need to set up storage compactors to 1, freedges to 2, farming inside the base to 3, cooking to 4, and place coal to coal generators to 6 and clean toilets to 7 and place sand in aqua savies to 8 and for those dupes who working outside the base all was simply to 5 but if need can be seted up to 9, so how to manage this off by 5? huh?

Hope at some day those who vote for 5 will be sorry.

[Mariilyn]

I voted 1-5* because I miss when job-related tasks were being prioritized. I feel that a 1-9* (9 jobs, 9 stricts) or 0-9* system, like some have mentioned, would be for the time being a good compromise between both.

[Nativel]

6 minutes ago, Mariilyn said:

0-9* system

I vote for this

[nessumo]

1 minute ago, Nativel said:

I vote for this

Most comments I see are that 1-5* is better because of job-related priorities, but 1-9 is better just because of more levels. That only means that we shouldn't throw away new system, just do a little change in it. Therefore, please vote on 1-5* system and comment with this suggestion  I am sure most people can be happy with that change.

[ScottFree]

10 minutes ago, Nativel said:

Those who selecting 1-5 will cry after they gain skill in the game, and when they do need to set up storage compactors to 1, freedges to 2, farming inside the base to 3, cooking to 4, and place coal to coal generators to 6 and clean toilets to 7 and place sand in aqua savies to 8 and for those dupes who working outside the base all was simply to 5 but if need can be seted up to 9, so how to manage this off by 5? huh?

Hope at some day those who vote for 5 will be sorry.

storage compactor = gofer

farming = farmer

cooking = chef

coal = engineer

toilets = groundskeeper

You don't need individual priorities levels with jobs. If jobs aren't getting done, get more dupes. Its really that simple.