TA beta: Suggestion: Custom Tabs (Fixed)

Fixed -- You should now be able to see the images with little trouble.


This post is for the TA beta testers and the devs working on the TA expansion.

As most of you are probally aware, its possible to get other civ's race specific (or shared) techs. The end result is you often end up with a clutter of different structures in your tabs that you want nothing to do with.

Am I right? If you think so, then read the following:
----------------

What I have in mind is to provide the players with the means to create their own custom tabs. Here is how its going to work.

This is how things should look when done.







1. The player gives a new tab its name. The player also selects how long the tab is going to last (maybe omit in the development process).
2. The player then edits the slots where the best structures shows up (This is something that the player decides).
3. Once done, the player can set this tab to his active tabs, and can use it.

4. In the event that the player decides that a given tab is no longer useful, they should be able to tell a planet to reassign all tiles using one tab to another (possibly triggering an auto-upgrade).

----------------
Here is a closer look.







----------------

This is what I expect to be able to do with it.

1. Trade goods tab.
-This tab will hold all trade goods. If I find a planet that I feel is a good place to build a trade good, I use this tab.

2. New planet colonization.
-This tab will hold cheap structures that help in quickly making a planet usable. Cheap factories, market centers, farms, entertainment centers, starport. No galactic achievements here. One other important detail I want to make some emphasis on. THESE STRUCTURES WILL NOT AUTO-UPGRADE! Atleast not until I tell them otherwise (need some method to tell planet to replace assign all tiles using this tab to another).

3. General operations tab.
I have a general build that I use for most planets. It often involves "Manufacturing Centers", because I find the long build times of, and sudden jump in upkeep costs of "Industrial Sectors" to be annoying. Unfortunately, "Manufacturing Centers" upgrade to "Industrial Sectors" because "Industrial Sectors" are by defualt considered 'better'. To avoid this problem, I could skip researching the tech in question, but then I loose out on the starbase modules that goes with it, plus I can't always avoid stealing the tech from other civs. So with this tab, "Manufacturing Centers" become the better structure where "Industrial Sectors" upgrades to this structure. This saves me the trouble of not having certain starbase modules, and it gives me the option of using "Industrial Sectors" on a select few industrial worlds.

----------------
Any questions? Any comments? Anything you guys want to say?
7,876 views 12 replies
Reply #1 Top
The problems I had with getting the images to show up right has been resolved.
Reply #2 Top
There is indeed, a helluva lot of clutter in TA games with Planetary Improvements. It can be a real pain to try to find things sometimes. Something needs to be done.

If this suggestion doesn't get implemented, please, PLEASE at least let us Obsolete Planetary Improvements to send them to the Old tab...

As a side not, I kinda get annoyed with the tons of different versions of ship modules that end up showing in each the component tabs too. I wish there was a way to only show the most recent version of each component(IE: if you have Stinger I-IV and Harpoon I, only Stinger IV and Harpooon I would show up in the Missile Tab) or only the most advanced version of a given component type (ie: if you have the entire Missile line, only Nightmare Torpedo would show up). *hint, hint :)
Reply #3 Top
If this suggestion doesn't get implemented, please, PLEASE at least let us Obsolete Planetary Improvements to send them to the Old tab...
End of quote


I've asked for something similar in the past for planets--I want an Active and Inactive tab and the ability to move items between them. I don't design ships as often as I develop planets, but I imagine a similar change there could save many players a fair amount of clicking.
Reply #4 Top
Any questions? Any comments? Anything you guys want to say?
End of quote


Unfortunately TA is feature-frozen at this point. But maybe that's something that could be looked at for 2.0.
Reply #5 Top
Unfortunately TA is feature-frozen at this point. But maybe that's something that could be looked at for 2.0.
End of quote


I suspected as much. BoogieBac said that they were running out of time. I posted this since this is a bit of an issue, and I just in case you guys had some extra time.

I guess I'll bump this post in time for 2.0.
Reply #6 Top


Unfortunately TA is feature-frozen at this point. But maybe that's something that could be looked at for 2.0.
End of quote


Since the release date has been pushed back a couple months now is adding new features back on the table?

Reply #7 Top
Unfortunately no.
Reply #8 Top

Unfortunately no.



End of quote


Bummer. Oh well next time...
Reply #9 Top
I don't see this as a "new feature" issue - I see this as completing a feature that was half-implemented (okay, more than half). Unique tech trees with unique building types pretty much requires that some way be offered to manage the glut of near-duplicate building types that can result. I think DivineWrath's suggestion may be going further than necessary, but a simple command to manually make a building obsolete would constitute a very minor change, and would help make the new feature complete.

In any case, I think the bottom line is that adding lots of new building types without any way to manage them is only going part-way to implementing the new feature.
Reply #10 Top
I'd go for a button / function that would let me set a planetary improvement as obsolete / non-obsolete.

Far too often I end up trading / seizing techs that have the same or worse stats and for some reason, don't go into the Obsolete tab like they reasonably should.

Makes for a **VERY** cluttered build list.
Reply #11 Top
I am still in favor of a right click with a confirmation box ability to move things between the current and obsolete list and back. It would save me so much micro-management time.

Scincerely,

[email protected]
Reply #12 Top
I think the bottom line is that adding lots of new building types without any way to manage them is only going part-way to implementing the new feature.
End of quote


I'm sure devs on a schedule might have good counter-arguments, but I pretty much have to agree with this.

On the other hand, I've been experimenting with no tech trading in most of my last DA games, so I guess there's a workaround of sorts...wait, that's not a workaround, that's an ugly kludge :p