intersection Intersections: not connected by default

[SkySentinel]

This is a kind of industry standard for both schematic drawing and practical implementations. It makes the routing much easier and intuitive. And it's actual not only for power lines, but for piping as well.

Current design with bridges is a sort of nice programming trick within the current program environment, but it's convenient for the developer rather than the end-user.

My suggestion is to make all intersections aren't connected by default; and to add optional connection hubs for the purpose of connection X- or T-intersection.

Something like this:

Elegant and convenient. 

And similarly for other pipes and wires.

 

[Kabrute]

a bridge is actually the industry standard for schematic drawing and works wonders for practical implementation

[Kasuha]

The place where stuff is happening are centers of tiles. That's where pipes and wires are built, and there's where pipes store their contents. You only draw connections between adjacent tiles, there are no crossings on these.

If this worked for pipes, it would mean there may be two independent pipe contents, the horizontal pipe's and the vertical pipe's. But only for crossings. And if you build three pipes to a tile, that would be a joint, and when you build fourth connection, it would magically turn to crossing? I am afraid players would get confused about it.

[SkySentinel]

@Kabrute Try to find bridges here: 

@Kasuha It's not a reason, it's an excuse. It could work as bridges work currently: just teleport across intersection tile. It's not worse than bridges, but much easier in routing.

[Kabrute]

Having examples to support your point is fine but please ensure they are not just examples

This is the same circuit from multiple designers, please notice the extremely common feature among them

What is that a solenoid circuit? a multitapped iron core transformer with cross connected single wave rectified outputs would result in a signal carrier transformer no?
Maybe something straight from a manual Both are in fact industry standard.  In so far as the games implementation goes however the current system is the easiest to implement as it is already in action and largely free of bugs.

[Kasuha]

23 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

@Kabrute Try to find bridges here

I think you completely missed my point. It's not about what's common notation in circuit diagrams, most ONI players don't even have sufficient background to understand them. Plus, of course, you're obviously cherry-picking examples that suit your cause.

[SkySentinel]

@Kabrute Check IEC 60617 for the real industry standard. Most industry leaders such Texas Instruments or National Instruments use it (at least in part of the intersections drawing).

@Kasuha As well as you missed mine.

What is simpler:

a) to draw a line across other 10 lines and put 1 hub above one of intersections;

b) or to erase 9 segments of 10 lines, put 9 bridges and then draw a line?

Please answer directly to this question.

Usually something becomes an industry standard for objective reasons. And even if you can't or don't want to see these reasons, they don't disappear and don't become less significant. Even if you know literally nothing about schematic diagrams, using the industry standard method to make an intersection will be more convenient for you anyway.

And if it's so hard to accept changes for you, you can think about it as "bridged by default". 

[Kasuha]

3 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

What is simpler:

...

Each tile center is by default an intersection point for all lines and wires. That's how the game is designed. You don't draw wires across tiles, you draw them between tile centers. That's pretty simple principle to me.

So... yeah, your idea is technically possible but I don't see it likely to get implemented as it would require serious revamp of many things that work quite fine so far. Just my opinion, though. My intent was more of to explain you why I think your idea is unlikely to find its way into the game.

I don't speak for the devs, though, they're free to pick whatever ideas from the suggestions forum they like regardless what other players think or write about them. Whether or not I convince you or you convince me is irrelevant in that regard.

[Oozinator]

@Kabrute Did you check IEC 60617 for the real industry standard?
^^

[SkySentinel]

@Kasuha Are you the game developer working for Klei? So far the answer is "no", you should care about "how to play this game", not "how to implement something in the game". And I don't see the answer to my question. I didn't ask you about the tiles mechanics, I asked what is simpler for you as an end-user. With all my respect to your contributions to the game development, I would much appreciate if you stop being demagogue.

[Master Miner]

7 hours ago, SkySentinel said:

It could work as bridges work currently: just teleport across intersection tile. It's not worse than bridges, but much easier in routing.

How would it work with several crossings next to each other?
Now we need the bridges not only to bridge but also to direct the flow and mix (different temperatures).

[SkySentinel]

20 minutes ago, Master Miner said:

How would it work with several crossings next to each other?
Now we need the bridges not only to bridge but also to direct the flow and mix (different temperatures).

1) The same as bridges but without space limitations: using just 1 tile instead of 3 (can be routed in a tight square grid).

2) You can use valves to direct the flow and especially to mix in the right proportions.

 

And speaking of readability: try to trace the routes here (actual megabase).

[AlexRou]

I think you're forgetting something here, the game has been out for a while and there are already players used to the current system. Why should they reverse the behavior and cause chaos/confusion for every single player and force everyone to restart or rebuild a huge portion of their piping and electrical network?

All your arguments are very subjective and there's no data to show players prefer the industry standard to current game behavior. So far all I'm seeing is a resistance to learn a new standard.

I suggest you do a poll and have actual numbers to show which behavior the players actually prefer. Personally I think to reverse a behavior people are already used to, you would need an overwhelming response in your favor (where a significant portion of the player base voted) to be even considered.

[SkySentinel]

@AlexRou I got your position and partially agree with it. But don't be so dramatic. People aren't so conservative that they don't accept anything new that is objectively more convenient (see the arguments above, they aren't subjective at all).

If you want to discuss my arguments, please be more specific.

Thank you for your suggestion. Maybe I'll do a poll in the Steam Community (to make it more representative).

[Saturnus]

I'm just happy that we have wire bridges now. The game didn't even have them in the beginning.

But there is a clear reason not to change the current system for Klei. It would make all bases built under the current rules non-functional and obsolete. That would not go down well with people having bases several thousand cycles old.  

[AlexRou]

1 minute ago, SkySentinel said:

People aren't so conservative that they don't accept anything new

Not saying they won't accept it, saying on patch day everyone who didn't read patch notes is going to be filing a bug report or be confused on why their piping and electrical stuff stopped working. The devs will then have to deal with the short term chaos/confusion and find a way to educate all players. Maybe even include a tutorial showing on the first time you load the game.

As I do not see a simple and perfect way to transition save files from the old behavior to the proposed behavior, everyone have to redesign their piping/electrical networks to get them to work correctly. 

Even if we assume they found a way to perfectly transition save files, there is no doubt it will take a significant amount of dev and testing time.

 

So adding the dev time to change the behavior to the dev time to transition players and save files and the PR time spent, this is a rater huge change. And so needs a overwhelming benefit or demand.

 

5 minutes ago, SkySentinel said:

that is objectively more convenient (see the arguments above, they aren't subjective at all).

If you want to discuss my arguments, please be more specific.

I see nothing objective here.

 

9 hours ago, SkySentinel said:

easier and intuitive.

 

9 hours ago, SkySentinel said:

Elegant and convenient. 

 

2 hours ago, SkySentinel said:

What is simpler:

 

2 hours ago, SkySentinel said:

will be more convenient for you anyway.

 

"easier", "intuitive", "elegant", "convenient", "simpler"

These are all purely opinion based arguments. The only objective argument you can get for your proposal is raw data on which the players prefer.

[Dujour]

1 hour ago, AlexRou said:

I think you're forgetting something here, the game has been out for a while and there are already players used to the current system. Why should they reverse the behavior and cause chaos/confusion for every single player and force everyone to restart or rebuild a huge portion of their piping and electrical network?

All your arguments are very subjective and there's no data to show players prefer the industry standard to current game behavior. So far all I'm seeing is a resistance to learn a new standard.

I suggest you do a poll and have actual numbers to show which behavior the players actually prefer. Personally I think to reverse a behavior people are already used to, you would need an overwhelming response in your favor (where a significant portion of the player base voted) to be even considered.

Define "out". The game is in early access. There's a huge notice when you load up the game that says, "things can and will change."

[AlexRou]

6 minutes ago, Dujour said:

Define "out". The game is in early access. There's a huge notice when you load up the game that says, "things can and will change."

By out I mean in the hands of players. Yes it says things can and will change, but I am asking why should it change when so many people are already used to how it works. All the arguments I've seen are purely opinion based, I do not feel like a statistic of one person is enough to warrant such a big change that will inconvenience so many people.

[Dujour]

48 minutes ago, AlexRou said:

"easier", "intuitive", "elegant", "convenient", "simpler"

These are all purely opinion based arguments. The only objective argument you can get for your proposal is raw data on which the players prefer.

 

The solution as described is easier and more intuitive based on my opinion also. The bridges are a pain in the butt to manipulate and cause a break in the "fun" part of the game which is designing the perfect colony. If my experience gets interrupted and the flow of the "fun" stops because the bridges are unwieldy, they should be looked at for a change. 

They should be looked at for a change.

5 minutes ago, AlexRou said:

By out I mean in the hands of players. Yes it says things can and will change, but I am asking why should it change when so many people are already used to how it works. All the arguments I've seen are purely opinion based, I do not feel like a statistic of one person is enough to warrant such a big change that will inconvenience so many people.

The idea would be to inconvenience people slightly in the short term for efficiency and "fun" gains in the long term. 

[Master Miner]

2 hours ago, Saturnus said:

It would make all bases built under the current rules non-functional and obsolete.

I don't see how introducing non-connected crossing could break old pipe systems.

On old cross-like junctions the graphical representation could change, but even that wouldn't be necessary.

The new crossing without connection could have a slightly different graphics, something analog to

I'm not sure what to think about the situation where several such crossings would be placed in a row. Would a liquid or gas "package" then skip over all of them? Or should such crossings be able to hold contents for both pipes?

[Kabrute]

Just for curiousity sake how would your system handle turns?

What I mean by this is that a given turn stack where two wires turn across the same cell without connecting but both turn within the cell

[Master Miner]

If the crossing is able to handle contents for both pipes, then turns are easy:

[Kabrute]

Now what happens if one end of a transformer/valve/bridge is placed in that spot

[Zarquan]

I understand why you would want this, but it would be quite difficult to implement in a way that makes sense to all players.

I suppose you could have a "connect the dots" scheme to configure the connections.  There would be 4 dots on the edges of a square and one slightly off center (as if it were behind the square).  You could drag a line from dot to dot to show which edges are connected and which edges connect to the power inlet, like the transformer in @Kabrute's example.  This would also allow the default arrangement of the connections to be complete connection, all for edges and the input, which would make all current bases continue to function as they do currently without the player having to fix it.  It would also allow the player to customize which if the wires are connected to each other, which is what SkySentinel wants.  I would certainly require any change to the connections to take material-free construction or alteration by a dupe. 

I feel that this would still be confusing to some players.  Such an interface would not be like any other interface in the game.  It would make things a bit more convenient if you get comfortable with the system, but it doesn't really feel necessary.  Plus, I am under the impression the designers don't want you to be able to easily cross one heavy watt wire across another. 

The fundamental issue that would need to be dealt with is that there is only one heavy watt wire per tile.  Each wire only has one energy interface, so they would have to redesign it to have one wire connected to more than one circuit.  Assuming they do this, there would still be issues.  What if one of the circuits overloads and this piece of wire breaks?  Do both circuits break?  (I'm paranoid about overloading circuits and don't let them completely break, so I am actually not sure if the power is interrupted if the wire breaks currently, but I'm sure it will eventually)

They would also have to redesign the overlays to accommodate these changes.

In short, it may be possible without any disruption to current colonies, but it would not be easy.  I am skeptical. 

[SkySentinel]

20 hours ago, Saturnus said:

But there is a clear reason not to change the current system for Klei. It would make all bases built under the current rules non-functional and obsolete. That would not go down well with people having bases several thousand cycles old.  

It seems you didn't get the idea. It's mostly cosmetic and doesn't change any functionality except the size of non-connected intersection and the logic of making new intersections (bridged by default, optionally connectable).

It's very easy for the devs to write a script, which will replace the old-style bridges to the new ones like "not connected" type on the picture in the very first post (it's a kind of bridge too). Not a problem at all.