Resources converters

Am I the only one that feel like having to enter the result of the conversion rather than the amount of energy to convert is not intuitive?

Also, the convert ratios interpretation seems weird to me?

Right now, say I have 1,000,000 energy that I want to convert to metal. If I enter “100,000” in the box, I will end up with 300,000 Metal, which would eat 400,000 energy.

Because of the 3:4 ratio, the number in the box gets multiplied, which is weird to me.

Also, and this might just be me, but I usually want to enter the amount of energy I want to convert, not the other way around.

So in this case, I would want to enter 400000, which would result in 300000 metal.

Having to enter 100000 to get there is… weird :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Yea I’ve had similar experiences, however I can imagine some others prefer to enter the amount of metal they want to get, rather than the energy to get there.

From a ux point of view I think it would be neatest to enter either or, see the resulting amount and confirm to convert.

In this case, if you want 100000 metal, you should enter 100000, not 100000 / 3 :slight_smile:

1 Like

The converter UI is a pile of crap currently, it was tacked on for testing and not properly given any thought. It’s going to be getting a pretty substantial overhaul relatively soon and get some Javascript love.

It’s called Javascript punishment.

Totally agree @Whilibarj. UI input should be either input amount or output amount. Since we’re despotic conquering governments, input makes more sense - easier to have the gendarmes enforce what goes in than what comes out. Looking forward to the javascript “tough love”!

1 Like

Both input an output will be choice in the new UI.

There are two main changes coming. with another possibly later:

  1. Converters wont be their own page anymore, when you hit the converter button, it’ll open on the current page, and maintain where you are.
  2. Both input and output will be text boxes, you change one, the other updates automatically.
  3. (Later), a three stage ‘linked’ conversion, you say ‘I need 20,000 mineral’, it’ll take from the energy where possible, but if you don’t have enough energy, it can simultaneously do a metal -> energy conversion of the correct amount to guarantee you that 20,000 mineral using any means possible.

The javascript will basically facilitate it, making costs clearer and allowing more varied yet clear conversions.

1 Like

dg converter

  • aren’t these numbers wrong? the sign (-) is not in the wrong place?
  • what is the point of convert metal or mineral into energy?

It is not necessarily wrong, but confusing nonetheless.

It basically displays the cost of the action, so you have a cost of 12 metal, and a cost of -1 energy. Resulting in the metal being taken from stock and energy added.

1 Like

Your explanation makes sense for the bottom two. I experimented with both directions…

1200 Metal conv. to 100 Energy (12:1 reduction)
800 Mineral conv. to 100 Energy (8:1 reduction)

1000 Energy conv. to 250 Metal (4:1 reduction) - The “4” and “-3” convey that. I.e. convert 4 energy to 4 metal and then add -3 to (subtract 3 from) the result, arriving at 1 metal.
1000 Energy conv. to 500 Mineral (2:1 reduction) - Again, 2 Energy to 2 mineral, add -1 to get to 1.

So on the Metal to Energy row: instead of 12 and -1, it should be 12 and -11.
On the Mineral to Energy row: instead of 8 and -1, it should be 8 and -7.

almost, let me show you the math:
So input is what you enter in the input box.
Metal costs 12, energy costs -1, input 50
Results, you do 50 times 12 = 600 in costs for metal, and 50 times -1 = -50 im costs for energy
Results, you pay 600 metal and get 50 energy

Or:
Metal costs -3, energy costs 4, input 75
Results, 75 times -3 = -225 metal costs, 75 times 4 = 300 energy costs.
So you end up paying 300 energy to get 225 metal

1 Like

Right-e-o, Phaedrus. Something must have changed since my first tests. Been good to get more metal out of it lately.