View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0029029 | Heart Of The Machine | Suggestion | Jul 3, 2024 4:00 am | Jul 3, 2024 10:04 pm | |
Reporter | Gloraion | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
Status | strongly considering | Resolution | open | ||
Product Version | 0.563 UI Tour | ||||
Summary | 0029029: Group buildings/jobs of the same type on the Input/Output page | ||||
Description | Buildings of the same type in the list of producers/consumers on the Input/Output page could be grouped. Currently, if you have 14 Slurry Spiders, there will be 14 entries of "43 Slurry Spider" on the I/O page for Generated Electricity, together with for example 14 entries of 14 entries of "168 Microbuilder Mini-Fab", 7 entries of "1010 Android Chamber" and many others. This has legibility issues, as 1. the user has to scroll a lot to see all relevant buildings, 2. to get an overview how much a building type contributes, a user would have to count the entries and sum up/multiplicate the production/consumption. Instead, the building types could be grouped, such that there's an entry with 1. the sum of the production/consumption by that type, 2. the number of buildings of that type, 3. the name of that type, (4. maybe the average production/consumption - not necessary but could be helpful). Example: ➤ 603 14x Slurry Spiders (Avg: 43) Clicking on that entry could/should fold out the list of individual buildings, to allow users to identify those with/without Overdrivers/Optimizers, for example. | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
Jul 3, 2024 4:00 am | Gloraion | New Issue | |
Jul 3, 2024 1:33 pm | Mintdragon | Assigned To | => Mintdragon |
Jul 3, 2024 1:33 pm | Mintdragon | Status | new => assigned |
Jul 3, 2024 1:33 pm | Mintdragon | Note Added: 0069612 | |
Jul 3, 2024 1:54 pm | Mintdragon | Assigned To | Mintdragon => Chris_McElligottPark |
Jul 3, 2024 10:04 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | assigned => strongly considering |